Similar posts

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

8 Factors That Are Destroying Healthy Relationships Between Men And Women

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of 'Man's Fight for Existence'. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature. Visit his new website at primalexistence.com

Most men, even if they’re still swimming in ocean of blue pills, have some awareness that something has gone awry with the relationship between men and women. Statistics prove this as well as divorce has been epidemic for a while now with record-number of children growing up with single parent around the world while young people are having less sex than before. And whether you be a feminist or part of the manosphere, I think both sides can agree on one thing: that a war between the sexes have been heating up in the recent years.

Why is all this happening? While men and women tend to play the blame game to avoid taking any responsibility, there are greater forces at play. The fact is, the continuing transformation of our society is making the antagonism between the sexes inevitable. Feminism is just a symptom, not the cause of our problems.

Before we look at why today’s sex relations are in a dismal state, consider the single factor that makes relationships prosper: Mutuality based on different but compatible roles.

All relationships work best when two parties have something different to share for their mutual benefit. For example, humans and horses have enjoyed a close relationship together throughout history (unlike, say, humans and bears). The relationship works because in exchange for food, protection, and care that humans provide, the horses offer themselves as transportation.

The relationship between men and women was also mutually beneficial for the entirety of human existence with men offering their services in exchange for having the women bear their children. But now, with the advent of modern society and its conditions, things have changed drastically.

1. “Equality”
image
At least these men had their male privilege.

“Equality” for women is the most abominable lie to have ever perpetuated on mankind.

Men have always provided for women. Men hunted for food, labored to build everything, and fought battles to defend their tribe. To say that men oppressed women throughout history is an insult to all those who sacrificed themselves in the factories, the coal mines, and the trenches. If women didn’t have certain rights that feminists like to cherry-pick, it’s because women weren’t drafted to fight wars. In exchange for their toil, the only thing men asked of women was to be supportive in their roles as wives and mothers.

But fast-forward to today, now that women have “achieved” social and political “equality” and even various advantages just for being born a female, many women today no longer feel that it’s necessary to exchange values with men for mutuality. It’s like when humans developed automobiles and didn’t need horses anymore. The difference is, humans and horses don’t need to be together; men and women do.

However, men’s sexual desire—which is greater than that of females—is still alive and kicking. So what we have today is a situation where women have gotten their social equality while sexual inequality persists for men (which is why many men choose to give up sex entirely to level the playing field). This is what happens when you standardize human beings into economic units.

2. Education and career over family

Stressed out from balancing between work and family? Yup, it’s the men’s fault that you tried to do both.

To maintain their advantage over men, women today are dedicating themselves to their education and career. Western women, in particular, have been so thoroughly sold on the idea of status and consumerist orgy that they are no longer interested in relationships. More and more women today are delaying marriage (if not outright rejecting it). And when they do get married, they are using it as a means to trap men into donating their sperm and cash, only to bail out when they want to.

3. Slut culture
image
Wow, what an achievement! I’m sure your failed parents are just as proud.

The advent of contraception and the decimation of whatever feminine decency that was left has turned the vast majority of young Western women into drunken sluts. The increasing number of sluts is diminishing the availability of quality women that men want to start a family with and has social implications for the society as a whole.

4. Government supplanting men
image

The only way women were able to “liberate” themselves from their supposed oppressors was by latching themselves on to a new alpha provider: the government. As said before, men form relationships with women by exchanging values, with his strength to provide and protect being his greatest asset. But now, the government (along with corporations and education system) fulfills those roles that men previously occupied. And not only that, but the government is deeply involved in the affairs of marriage, sending professional white-knights to extort and arrest men who’ve been used up and thrown away by women.

It also doesn’t help that the government is increasingly monopolizing violence, one of the most important value that a man possesses. And that leads to my next point.

5. Too few wars, too many men
image
I doubt these men had to think of ways to entertain women like a monkey to get their attention.

The recurring theme across patriarchal societies of the past and present are violence and warfare. And the most commonly associated traits of masculinity are also traits of warriors such as strength, bravery, aggression, discipline, and so on. It’s quite simple: the more violent the environment is, the more masculine men become. And the more conflicts and wars there are, the more the women depend on men—thus keeping the collective value of male population high.

It’s no coincidence that Western societies have started to feminize as they endured decades of relative peace since the end of WWII. The lack of warfare also means that there are now more young men per woman (practically 1 to 1) than there normally would have been under a warring society. Excess of men—who are also emasculated and feminized—means that the collective value of average men has dropped to a historical low, upsetting the balance of sexual marketplace in the process. Only the top 5-10% of men with the warrior traits and wealth are able to enjoy a semblance of a balanced relationship with women—and even they have to play the game.

6. The decimation of Western women

Declining marriage rates? Don’t worry, some simps will try to put a ring on their fingers.

Many Western women have been corrupted by our toxic materialist society. They are fatter, uglier, more narcissistic, more entitled, hedonistic, superficial, less faithful, and seem to think that having bitch attitude makes them hip. Women can afford to stoop low because their sex drive isn’t the same as men’s, while they couldn’t care less for love and companionship when they’re too busy with their travels and careers.

And because of all the thirsty men, women’s collective sexual market value hardly suffers while the value of those who are merely average becomes inflated beyond their real value. You only need to check out the gross discrepancies between the sexes in dating sites and apps to see how bad things are.

7. Anti-male culture

Men are all rapists waiting to be hatched out of their facade, men merely uttering a word to a woman is a harassment, men are always “mansplaining” to women, men are insecure cry-babies, men open their legs too much when they sit, men and their toxic masculinity need to be controlled, men have to do more for women, men are dominating in tech fields because of sexism, men shouldn’t say this, men shouldn’t do that, etc, etc… And of course, if men push back, they’re “misogynists.”

And we’re we still wondering why relationships are getting harder to form these days?

8. Lack of shared values

As social beings, we humans need more than economic incentives and passions to form a relationship for a family to prosper. There must be shared values.

With traditional family values under constant attack from all directions, the bonding between males and females have been reduced to mere hook-ups and economic unions. To make matters worse, many from both sides are resorting to predatory behaviors to exploit one another for either money (for women) or sex (for men), augmenting the distrust between the two sexes. Others, who either don’t want to play games or have become overtly hostile to the opposite sex, have given up on relationships entirely. This is the end result of atomization and extreme individualism under a system that destroys all values for the sake of economic advancement.

Conclusion

The destruction of sex relationship is having a negative effect on society as a whole and is transforming the demographic landscape of many Western nations. Unlike what the aesthetically-challenged feminists and the man-children crying their own way believe, men and women are not adversaries. You don’t have to be a traditionalist to see that the sex relations have gone awry due to the development of modern society and its destructive cultures.

Many Western men have already checked out or gone out to find traditional women elsewhere. But that is merely adapting to the situation; it doesn’t solve the problem at a societal level. The continuing antagonism of the sexes will eventually spread around the world. Unless the current course is somehow reversed, we can only wait and see how far the damage will run its course.

AbysmalDescent #sexist reddit.com

Re: 'Shy and awkward’ student, 19, who googled 'how to make a friend' then touched a schoolgirl, 17, on her arm and waist while trying to chat to her faces JAIL after sex assault conviction

Imagine a world where men could send women to jail just for touching them. Like, just permanently end their future(judicially, professionally and socially destroy them) and incarcerate them(with other far worse criminals no less), just because of a touch. No violence. No ill-intent. No danger. No harm. Literally just light tactile contact(not even skin-on-skin).

Imagine a world where men could actually think this is an appropriate and equal response to a woman touching them. I can't even imagine such a world and, yet, this is what is considered normal when the genders are reversed. It is just insane the level of power that women have, and the level of hatred and disregard that exists for men(regardless of their intent or the circumstances placed upon them) for this to even be possible.

This also wouldn't even have happened if it was another woman who had touched her, nor would it happen if it was a man touching another man or a woman touching a man. At best they would think "oh, that's a bit awkward/inappropriate" and then moved on. They wouldn't see themselves as victims or respond with violent anger. The only punishment I could even justify in this scenario is a course in etiquette, and even that seems excessive given the circumstances.

I've been touched without consent by females ever since high school. One even grabbed my dick during a pair assignment while the teacher was out of the room. Everyone thought it was funny. Her only punishment was not being paired with me again. Such male privilege. And don't get me started on parties and bars.

I've had women grab my ass when I worked at a bar, and they weren't doing it in a nice way at all, and yet the thought of sending them to jail was not even remotely on my list of responses. There was no response of anger, vitriol or violence.

To me, this would be as much of an over-reaction walking on the street and having a stray dog come up to me, looking for food, and poking me with its nose(with no sign of violence whatsoever), and then me going "that dog needs to be put down, it's oppressing me".

If a woman attacked violently, then I would consider pressing charges because she is a danger to herself and others(ironically, she would probably still not face any jail time because she's a woman).

”Imagine a world where men could send women to jail just for touching them.”

Yeah, on the waist, without saying a word, and the girl having said "stop" before.

Pretty sure that is not how it went down but, even if it was, that still doesn't justify the type of overreaction it got.

It's not normal to go up to someone, touch them on the waist without saying anything, and leave.

It doesn't matter whether it's normal or not, the point is the type of response you would have to it and why you have that response. If a woman touched you on the waist, under any circumstance, you would not consider sending her to jail for it. You would also not just presume the worse of intensions against her character either.

If a stray dog came up to me on the street and touched my knee with his paw, that wouldn't be "normal" but it also would justify me kicking that dog or calling for that dog to be put down either. And, people are capable of basic empathy or sympathy for a dog, surely they are capable of doing the same for an awkward, sheltered and inexperienced teenage boy too.

lmao imagine actually defending this.

Are you are not familiar with the concept of critical thought? I understand how fair judgement and fair treatment might seem like radical concepts to you, at least when it comes to men, but surely these concepts aren't beyond your comprehension. I also understand how ingrained misandry is into our daily thinking and rationalizing, which these types of cases exemplify perfectly, which is why I pointing these things out.

A woman can never be too cautious with a man who touched her fucking waist without permission.

"can never be too cautious"? What are you even talking about here? Are you going to instantly die from someone touching you? Are you going to fall ill or be crippled from a light touch? Or are you just speculating and escalating on other shit that didn't happen? if someone walks next to me, does that give me the right to punch them in "self-defence" because "you can never be too cautious"? And, yes, you can be too cautious how how you exercise that caution is overt and detrimental to others.

A man doesn't have a "right" to touch any woman like that.

Who said anything about having a "right" to anything? Is this another projection? You can certainly say "hey, don't touch me" to anyone you like and you can communicate that clearly and constructively to anyone. You can certainly take some steps to prevent it from happening, including removing yourself from the situation or removing them from the situation. The's not the point. The point is the type of reaction you have being disproportionate and targeted. It's like no one has the "right" to insult me or "offend" me, and yet that doesn't mean I get to assault them or send them to jail if they do.

I'll concede that the punishment is disproportionately severe, but he deserved to be punished nonetheless.

Do you think a woman would warrant that type of punishment if she touched another woman? Or if a woman touched a man? Or if a man touched another man on the waist? How is it that you can only truly justify this type of overt vitriolic reaction when it comes to men, and only men, touching a woman?

Maybe a fine + hours of community service and some classes on how to not creep women out.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the way women see/treat men, or how easily/quickly women can be "creeped out" by men(and only men) might also be majorly detrimental or inherently bigoted? That, maybe, society is teaching women to have an irrationally negative disposition towards men or a strong prejudice against men that is just culturally accepted. What if, for example, it was a black person touching white person, and then that white person had an overly-violent reaction to being touched by a black person because they are black, and then called for jail time or "community service and classes on how not to creep white people out"?

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Something I've noticed about transgender dating.

After I dumped my mtf boyfriend for becoming a woman when I'm straight I googled the situation out of curiosity. Maybe I'm biased but this is just something I've noticed. Whenever a wife/girlfriend describes her partner as being transgender people say "just take it one step at a time you may find you're still attracted". Yeah, okay if someone's straight they're NOT going to stay romantically or sexually attracted to someone who's transitioning to be female. *upturned eyes emojis*

But if it's a gay man who's partner is becoming MTF the answers tend to be more honest and practial "you're not compatible just be friends".

I hate to see sexism in absolutely everything but what else would it be?

(1984stardusta)
They will say two things at the same time:

Trans women are women and if lesbians are not attracted to female penises they are not able to love all women, thus they are not true lezbians, but vagina fetishists who hate women in every shapes and forms.

Or trans women are women, if your husband becomes a woman you have to keep loving him, because he is the same person in a different body and love doesn't care, just learn to be a lesbian and change your identity and sexual orientation for love.

In both cases women need to ignore preferences, boundaries and sexual attraction to pander to his needs, lesbians need to become heterosexual and heteros need to become lesbians because his sexuality is more important.

(gfty6789)
Right, imagine the outcry if everyone just started saying "no, you're being a vagina fetisist, go sleep with that penis" to TIMs.

(Cineezyy)
I remember going on one of the subs that discusses trans partners and the majority of posts by females (with a MtF partner) were talking about how they can be supportive to maintain the relationship. While the posts by males (with a FtM partner) were talking about how their dick will no longer get hard.

(1984stardusta)
The burden on the partner is absurd, how can someone condemn natural and healthy sexual drive?

All the pressure to repress sexuality in name of a greater good is regressive. Ignore your feelings, thoughts, preferences and just be nice! Don't be yourself, be kind or you are a murderer, because this person is going to commit suicide unless you agree to everything.

Suddenly, a man or a woman needs to feel aroused by the representation of the opposite of their needs and ignore sexual organs.

What can possibly go wrong?

(butyoucantedit)
I wonder what would happen if lesbians just started openly and happily "indentifying" as vagina fetishists. Cos you're not allowed to ~kink shame, right? Of course I think I know what would happen...

(unfeelingzeal)
"Trans women are women and if lesbians are not attracted to female penises they are not able to love all women, thus they are not true lezbians,"

i'm a bi guy and that's what a trans mod and a trans member over on a sub that shall not be named said to me, in a topic literally asking what the difference was between pan- and bisexuals. i said i'm only attracted to cis men and women and basically got attacked for saying that's bullshit because "you can't tell" who's trans and who's not.

please, get real. not even a majority of trans people are passing.

i've left that community because they're extremely toxic to anything outside of their extremely narrow definitions of sexuality. according to them, i'm either a fake bisexual, a wrong bisexual or i'm a flat out bigot. umk.

(the_lonliest_shibe)
I wouldn't say that your partner "became a woman". Even with all the surgery in the world he will never be a woman - he'll never have a uterus or get pregnant or have XX chromosomes.

I think it's more apt to say that your male partner has decided to imitate a woman, and it's perfectly understandable to not be attracted to the female form if you are straight. Theres nothing that's going to change that and people who try and change your mind on that are delusional. If i tell a straight guy "oh just try being with a man, you could learn to enjoy it" I will get (rightly) yelled at because I'm trying to pressure someone into changing their views and preferences. Yet men do it to us all the time..

I'm a lesbian and I regularly get pressured to date TIMs or men. What TIMs do not understand though is that I'm attracted to women. Not men dressed as women. Breasts and a womanly form are just one aspect of that - I'm also attracted to someone who has gone through the same struggles as I have and has the same out look on the world. And you can never change that with surgery or medicine...

(hostabunch)
Just. More. Male. Bullshit.

Do you really think a gay man is going to keep a partner who doesn't have a penis anymore?

(ChewMyMeatForYou)
As a bisexual, I want to clear something up. I'm not just attracted to both men and women because of their appearance. Universally, confidence is seen as attractive. (Not cockiness or attention-seeking, just pure IamwhoIam confidence.) There are definitely people I meet who are typically attractive, yet lacking confidence, or worse, having too much confidence and too little education.

I have yet to meet a trans person that doesn't place their personal comfort aside or has enough self-esteem to have an awkward-free interaction. If I can't eat a meal with you as a friend, without you doing something that makes me uncomfortable, I'm never going to date you. That goes for the straight men, or gay women I'm interested in.

Living a lie of this is what men sound and look like or vice versa, is exhaustive. Being GNC myself, having PTSD, that's enough work for me to manage navigating life without conflict. Why would I take on someone else's self-esteem conflict, to enhance my life? I'm an adult. It is my responsibility to help myself, not save others.

(LittleOwl12)
AGPs need their long term partners to stick around because for the part, they are unappealing. If not flat out repulsive. One guy on Tumblr braved the storm and explained why he never transitioned: the Uncanny Valley. He rightly pointed out that trying to pretend to resemble something you clearly are not is creepy.

(Babyorlaith123)
I think repulsive is a bit of a strong word but I do agree most transgender people don't pass from my experience (and I've met a LOT due to liberal acquaintances). Usually TIFs don't look the slightest but manly and TIMs are quite ugly and unappealing. Doesn't make them bad people but yeah.

(LittleOwl12)
No, it doesn't make them bad people but I stand by the word repulsive. Some of them really are disconcerting to look at, especially the huge older men squeezing into clothes meant for teenage girls.

I'm not using that word out of spite and I know it's a strong one, but I think it's important for people to understand why transition very rarely "works" the way you want it to.

(Cineezyy)
I’d say repulsive is pretty accurate tbh

(Bananastic)
> okay if someone's straight they're NOT going to stay romantically or sexually attracted to someone who's transitioning to be female

?

Male can't transition to be female. They are still males, some of them decide to use hormones or cosmetic surgery to look more like women, some don't and identify as "butch" transwomen or say they don't have to change anything to be a woman.

You could perfectly still be attracted to a trans woman as a straight woman. The problem is if they physically transition as i suppose you are like most of us both attracted to primary and secondary sex characterisitics in people.

(georgiaokeefesgrotto)
The one woman I know that this happened to stayed in the relationship (last I knew) but told me once that it was like there it was like there was another woman and that woman was more important to him.

It doesn't get better, you did the right thing. You are right as well that women don't generally find the 'new woman' attractive.

Lhopital_rules #transphobia reddit.com

If someone presents themselves as a woman when they are a transgendered woman, without disclosing such information to their significant other, then yes, that is "lying".


A trans woman is a woman as far as being my friend is concerned. But not as far as being my lover is concerned. I will fight to the death to defend someone's right to get gender reassignment surgery if they truly have gender dysmorphia. But I will not pretend that I see no difference between a woman who was born that way and a woman who was constructed. Most men feel the same, though -- lucky for transgendered women -- there are men who don't care.

Reconstructive surgery is not necessary for living with gender dysmorphia.

To be honest, I don't really care how much the fact that trans people exist and some of them are women you might be interested in makes your boner sad. A trans woman living as a woman is neither a lie nor a "lie."


I didn't say that "a trans woman living as a woman is neither a lie nor a 'lie'". I said that it would be lying -- or at least, omitting the truth -- if a trans woman were to carry on a long-term relationship with a man without telling him that she used to be a man. Because most - though again, not all - men care about that sort of thing. And not because it's logical. But because a dick wants what it wants. You think a gay guy wouldn't be upset if the guy he was dating turned out to be trans and didn't know until 6 months in? (OK, maybe a bad example. I don't know any gay guys who would wait to have sex that long.)

But my point is, I think you may be letting your preconceived notion of me as a gay-hating librul-bashing conservatard (which couldn't be farther from the truth, btw) color your perception of my comments. All I've said and all I'm saying now is if someone isn't honest about something like that to their partner, it's not fair to their partner.

EDIT: And for the record, I understand that you feel offended or whatever about things I've said and that you're upset, but this is not a good way to go about bringing people to your side:

> To be honest, I don't really care how much the fact that trans people exist and some of them are women you might be interested in makes your boner sad.

Because, for one, you obviously care or you wouldn't be having this discussion with me. But also because it's a very spiteful thing to say. And utterly silly, since I'm not upset about trans women existing pre- or post-op, and I already have a girlfriend who I will likely marry. I don't have any personal vendetta against LGBT people [as I mentioned before, I'm very pro-gay rights and have close friends who are LGBT in one way or the other]. I'm simply having an intellectual argument with you. And I hope you know that. Because there's already enough hate in the world without you and I adding to it.

Larry Solomon #fundie #sexist biblicalsexology.com

(I imagine most of you are acquainted with Larry Solomon, of ‘Biblical Gender Roles’ fame. He has started a new blog called ‘Biblical Sexology’, the content of which should be pretty predictable considering the content of his previous blog. This post is part 1 of a two-part post.)

What God Wants Men to Want From Sex

Today we are told that the primary thing husbands should want from sex is to emotionally bond with their wives. Many Christian teachers teach that is sinful for a man to desire sex with his wife purely for his own physical pleasure. That he should never “sexually objectify” his wife and view her as an object for his sexual use and pleasure. They teach this as part of their larger belief that we should never want anything for ourselves, but instead we should only be looking to do good things for others.

They base this false teaching on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Bible passages like Philippians 2:4 which states “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others”. The problem is that they ignore a very important word in that verse and that word is “also”. There is absolutely no sin in a person seeking to meet their own needs or even their own desires as long as they also consider the needs and desires others.

The truth that may shock many Christian readers is that God actually encourages men to use their wife’s body to meet their sexual thirsts.

In Romans 1:26-27 we read the following:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet”.

God uses different language for sex when it comes men and women. In the context of homosexuality, God says that women “change the natural use into that which is against nature”.

So, what is “the natural use” which Romans 1:26 refers to? We find out in the very next verse. In Romans 1:27 we are told that the natural use refers to “men, leaving the natural use of the woman”. In other words, women were created for man’s sexual use.

If we turn back to the Old Testament, we see God elaborating on this purpose of woman, to be used for man’s sexual pleasure. In Proverbs 5:15 we read “Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well”. In this passage God compares a man’s sexual desire for woman to the human thirst for water. In other words, God is saying sex is a very important need for a man. And God has given men their wives’ bodies to meet their sexual thirst.

But later in the same passage of Scripture we read in Proverbs 5:18-19:

“Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love”.

Between Romans 1:27, Proverbs 5:15 and then Proverbs 5:18-19 we see that what the church teaches men they should want from sex today is WRONG. When they condemn husbands for wanting to use their wife’s body for their own sexual pleasure they do so in direct contradiction to the written Word of God.

If you are a man reading this and you desire to satisfy yourself with your wife’s body, to drink your fill of it and to use it for your own pleasure – there is no sin in this desire. But rather this desire is holy and part of God’s design of your masculine nature. You may have been raised your whole life to be ashamed of such desires. But I implore you based upon the clear teachings of the Bible, that you leave your shame behind and fully embrace the God created desires in you that you have toward woman.

Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

There's no such thing as homosexuals – only people who currently enjoy homosexuality. And adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

And this is what God says about sin and specifically homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [sodomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

Genesis 19:7-9 "And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. (8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (9) And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."

Luke 17:28-30 "So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed."

Romans 1:18-32 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It's not just Paul that pointed it out.

Genesis 19:4-13 "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be raped to keep them from having_sex with another man - shows rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Deuteronomy 23:17 "There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

1 Kings 22:46 "And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land."

1 Kings 15:11-12 "And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."

2 Kings 23:7 "And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove."

Ezekiel 16:49-50 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

And the "pride" parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

Matthew 19:4-5 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband. And only two people off opposite gender can become "one flesh".

May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

Admin #transphobia #kinkshaming feministwiki.org

Transgender ideology

Transgender ideology is a loose catch-all term referring to philosophies, world views, and dogmatic statements adhered to by political activists who see themselves as trying to uphold the human rights of transgender people. The political movement of furthering these ideologies is called the transgender movement. Feminists tend to use these terms critically when pointing out sexist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic aspects of the movement. Those who support the transgender movement tend to oppose the term transgender ideology, likening it to phrases such as homosexual agenda which is used to ascribe a sinister intent to gay/lesbian/bisexual rights activists.

The practice of supporting transgender ideology is called transgender activism (often shortened trans activism) and a person who follows this practice is called a transgender activist (often shortened trans activist). The word "transgender" in the phrase "transgender activist" is not to be understood as an adjective for the person in question (i.e. "an activist who happens to be transgender") but as a reference to the activism they practice (i.e. "an activist supporting transgender ideology"). Many trans activists are not transgender themselves.

The term trans rights activist (shortened TRA) is sometimes used for its similarity to men's rights activist (shortened MRA). Just like so-called MRAs claim to support men's human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism, TRAs claim to support transgender human rights but end up blaming everything on women and opposing feminism.

Aspects

Trans women are women

One of the core dogmata of the transgender movement is the statement that trans women are women (and the less often repeated trans men are men). Under this view it's important to write trans woman as two words (adjective and noun) and not transwoman, to stress the fact that so-called trans women are literally a subtype of women, just like white women, black women, short women, tall women, and so on. The statement "trans women are women" is not meant as a vague slogan of moral support, but in a literal sense.
Since the statement contradicts the dictionary definition of the word "woman" (adult human female), it implies that a different definition would be better. When asked about this, transgender activists usually avoid providing an actual definition. Most attempts tend to revolve around a circular definition, such as "anyone who identifies as a woman, is a woman." As such, the statement "trans women are women" is probably best described as a dogma.
The idea that transwomen are literally women is taken as the basis for many problematic conclusions, such as: transwomen deserve to partake in women's sports, transwomen should be seen as part of the natural dating pool of lesbians (see also cotton ceiling), transwomen deserve to use all female facilities, enter female-only spaces and events, speak on women's rights as women, and so on.

Gender identity

The idea that "trans women are women" is usually backed by a belief in an essential, inborn, and immutable "gender identity" that every person supposedly possesses.[6] Transwomen are said to be real women on the grounds that they possess a "female gender identity" which they are said to share with women. Likewise for transmen and a "male gender identity" that is supposedly shared by all men.
Just like transgender activists refuse to provide an objective definition of womanhood, they tend to refuse defining gender identity on any objective terms. Usually, when explaining how a person has discovered their gender identity, one hears references to sexist stereotypes ascribed to womanhood and manhood. When confronted directly however, transgender activists refuse the notion that gender identity is based entirely on those stereotypes. Since no objective measure exists at all, they are effectively forced to accept the claims of anyone and everyone regarding what their gender identity is. Thus we see transwomen with full beards and intact male anatomy, who are said to be literally real women like any other.
Transgender children
Since gender identity is said to be inborn, it follows that some children would be transgender, and only need to find this out. Once it's found out, the only way forward is to support the child in its transgender identification. This leads to the transgender activist "affirm-only" approach towards youth, where for instance a boy who says "I wish I was a girl" or "I'm actually a girl" is from that point on treated as if the child is literally a girl. (Given a female name, referred to by female pronouns, asked to be considered a girl by others, and so on.) Likewise for girls who express that they wish they were a boy, or claim that they are internally a boy. Trans activists are opposed to the alternative "watchful waiting" approach.
The trans activist affirm-only approach has been supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[7] Parents concerned over this model of treatment published a long criticism and launched a petition reaching 1,200 signatures.[8] Psychologist James Cantor also published a fact-check article criticizing the AAP's decision.
Trans activists usually support giving puberty blocking medication such as Lupron to children who think they are transgender.[7] These children may be as young as 10 years old.

Cisgender people oppress transgender people

Another core tenet of transgender ideology is the notion that cisgender people oppress transgender people, just like how men oppress women, white Americans oppress black Americans, or how straight people oppress gay men and lesbian women.[11][12] As such, when a man identifies as a transwoman, his position relative to that of a woman turns from being her oppressor to someone who is oppressed by her. His male privilege is denied as he is now considered a woman, and the fact that he is a transgender woman means that he is oppressed by so-called cisgender women. Further, being both a woman and transgender means he is considered to suffer under two axes of oppression, akin to how black women suffer both from racism and sexism. This way, a white man suddenly becomes comparable to a black woman with regards to oppressive power dynamics in society.
As per the principle of intersectionality (appropriated from black feminism), transgender activists often say that the feminist movement should not only include transwomen's concerns, but outright center them in many discussions, as otherwise the feminist movement might fail to sufficiently address their concerns.

Collusion with "sex work" activism

For reasons not entirely clear, many if not most transgender activists also seem to support the "sex work" movement.[13] Possible explanations for this collusion might be:
* Both movements stem from queer ideology, which is based on transgression of social norms without regard to ethical concerns
* The transgender movement being dominated by autogynephilic men who are interested in upholding a society in which women exist for male sexual pleasure
* Anti-feminists supporting both the transgender movement and the "sex work" movement, simply because they see both of them as weapons against women's liberation

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Life fuel: Roasty learns that sexual promiscuity has consequences

image

(IndraMaheshwar)
Wait but I thought 16 year olds were innocent angels who don't know how babies are made?!

Reddit moralizers will call you a pedo for thinking about 16 year olds sexually, meanwhile they're having group anal sex so intense that it cripples them for life. Jfl.

(GasTheBlues)
The veil was ripped from my eyes when I was like 18, some 12 year old girl in the youth club I worked at gave bjs to a couple of the boys who went there, was creepy af to interact with her after that knowing about it.

(RAZENKN)
I’ll bet those roasties were Hispanic!

yes. i'm mexican. what gave it away?

Hispanic girls are by far the sluttiest on the planet. I mean those hoes are notorious for starting young. I wouldn’t be surprised if they made up the largest percentage of teenage pregnancies.

(Dirtatron)
Dude, make no mistake, that is a phenomenon that transcends national and cultural boundaries. I'm from eastern europe and throughout highschool I've seen girls date 25+ y.o. guys. Few of my acquaintances continue that tradition by hooking up with with 16 y.o. girls from our former highschool even though they are about to finish uni.

(StopCopingStartLDAR)
in 5th grade i went to a going away party for a girl that was moving (my first and only party btw) and i remember walking down the stairs to the basement and seeing one girl giving a guy a lap dance to Hypnotize by Notorious BIG and later i saw another girl giving a dude a blowjob. IN 5TH GRADE. and this was like 2000 so i can’t even imagine what they’re doing now.

(FACEandLMS)

It's not that minors are non-sexual, it's that they're stupid and make bad decisions. Mentally it's easy to manipulate or control minors, which is why they can't even enter into a contract legally by themselves.

When minors have sex with other minors, they're on the same playing field and even if bad decisions are made you can't blame a specific party. The law is there so that adults with more brain development and life experience don't take advantage of dumb kids. Kids don't magically grow up and become smart overnight on their 18th birthday, but they had to come up with a number, just like the age for drinking / driving etc.

Anyways, pedophilia in your head is ok as long as you don't act out on them. There are people with weirder fantasies.

Yet, if a woman gets drunk at age 25 and then has sex with a 25 yo man, she is not responsible for her actions and the whole case is treated little differently from if she had been a sober 14 year old.

And they now have "coercive rape" where if a man says: "I'll give you a Hollywood deal if you fuck me, but you don't have to accept this", the woman can fuck him then 20 years later, claim she got raped. #metoo.

So are women irresponsible children FOREVER, unable to make adult decisions or not?

(PvtJamesRyan)
“Stupid and Make bad decisions”

Wait a second, I thought inceltears official doctrine was that all girls should be free to “explore their sexuality” regardless of age and anyone who is against this is automatically labelled an incel. Don’t believe me? Check out the front page of inceltears now where they are calling out incels for speaking out against teen sexuality at this very moment.

(mwobuddy2)

woman is victim.

"blame the pron, not the individual!".

man is victim.

Good, that degenerate deserved it.


16 year old

having GROUP sex.

Suifuel.

(mantrad)
Remember you are a pedo for finding 17 year olds attractive, meanwhile they are doing this every day

(RareRaspberry6)
Lol you have no idea. where I live age of consent is 13. other parts of the country have younger AoCs, some parts have no AoC at all, some even define age of consent as "age in which the girl first started menstruating". when i was 12 and in school all the girls in my class were going out with men old enough to be their fathers simply because they had cars and money to buy them stuff. it pissed me off so much. i'll never understand why women hate dating guys their own age so much.

Brian L Powell #fundie brianlpowell.com


Biblical Sexuality

Sexuality has become an interesting topic. The Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions has radically changed the conversation. So many things influence the discussion: culture, politics, philosophy, ethics, and religion just to name a few. From a Christian perspective, I believe the most important lens through which to view this topic is the Bible. With many people attempting to deconstruct sound biblical teaching concerning marriage, it only seems right to expound on the issue at the root of the entire conversation: Homosexuality.

I’d like to start by saying that I have friends who are homosexual. I’ve ministered over the years to many within the homosexual community. This is not an attempt to promote an “us-versus-them” mentality. It is merely a look at biblical sexuality: God’s intent and how we should respond.

“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone…’ Then the Lord God made a woman…” (Genesis 2:18, 22). There are several truths to be learned from the creation account. First and foremost, God created sexual identity and it can’t be undone inherently, theoretically, psychologically, or any other way. God made Adam who was a man, and Eve who was a woman. Thus sexual identity was established.

Beyond identity, God also created sexual intimacy. God intended sexual intimacy to take place between a man and a woman in the context of marriage. Homosexuality abandons God’s design in several ways. For one, instead of embracing the man-woman design, homosexuality embraces a same-sex preference as an option for sexual intimacy.

What does the Bible say?

“Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin” (Lev. 18:22). “If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent” (Lev. 20:13).
“Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies… Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men…” (Rom. 1:25-27).
Every mention of homosexual behavior in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, condemns it without question. The passages aren’t vague in the way that people might have once looked to the Bible to inaccurately uphold slavery. Yet those who advocate for the legitimacy of a homosexual lifestyle have gone to great lengths to call into question every biblical reference. For example, they would argue that the book of Leviticus also condemns eating shellfish or cutting your sideburns. They would say it’s ancient religious law that doesn’t apply to New Testament believers.

First, that is an extremely irresponsible way to read and interpret Scripture. One can’t just ignore these commands as ancient practices no longer relevant for New Testament Christians. That misses one of the most essential understandings of the Old Testament. Specifically, that there is an entire portion of teaching dedicated to ceremonial uncleanness and another section of teaching that speaks specifically to immoral conduct. One is centered on the sacrificial system of the people of Israel. The other is meant for every human being throughout history.

It’s one thing to describe temple rituals. It’s an entirely different thing to talk about God’s moral law (e.g. Ten Commandments). Besides, the New Testament condemns homosexual behavior as well. When it’s talked about in the Old Testament, it’s rooted in the moral law of God. It’s not the same as which foods one was allowed to eat under ancient Jewish dietary laws. Just like the prohibitions in the Old Testament against incest, God’s warning against homosexual behavior is for every age.

Then there are people who challenge New Testament verses by saying that while it seems to reprimand homosexual acts, it’s really talking about male prostitutes, not same-sex monogamous relationships. There’s only one problem, the Greek word used for homosexuality in the New Testament is ??se?????t?? (arsenokoítes) and means “partner in homosexual intercourse.” So the conclusion remains: God created human beings as male and female, and meant for sexual intimacy to take place in the context of marriage alone. As a result, the Bible throughout describes any deviation from that design as outside of God’s will for our lives.

Today’s culture hangs so much on sexuality. The world teaches that fulfilling one’s sexual desire is what brings ultimate satisfaction in life. The reality is that no earthly relationship can make one’s life complete. However, there is One who can fulfill our heart’s desire for love and acceptance. Knowing Jesus will never leave us empty. True fulfillment comes by having an authentic relationship with him.

There are many who want to ignore clear biblical teaching on the matter. Some of those people are clergy, who have no problem performing ceremonies for same-sex couples. These people not only ignore the Bible, but also 2000 years of church history. Make no mistake, from the Early Church Fathers to the Reformation and beyond, homosexual behavior has been deemed as against God’s unique sexual design for humanity.

The problem we will run into in the future does not pertain to clear biblical teaching on the subject, but rather to ecclesial and pastoral ethics. Will those who are ordained in the church uphold the biblical views and traditions of the church faithfully? Only time will tell. Regardless, the Bible is clear, without doubt and without reservation, homosexual behavior stands against God’s intent for human sexuality.

various TERFs #sexist#homophobia reddit.com

[Note: Comments in the thread “Actually, no, I won't date or waste my energy on 'Trans Men' or 'Non Binaries'.” by ToughTelephone]

(scienceisarealthing)

Where? Your sentiment is hardly new. It gets posted here daily. What you say is true, but I don’t see anyone here supporting TIFs unquestioningly. I see people pointing out that young GNC lesbian women are victims of transactivism and patriarchy, but that’s not the same thing.
Radical feminism is about tearing out the roots of oppression, and the root is patriarchy, not female victims of the system. Fuck Aunts and handmaidens, but they are the symptom, not the disease. This isn’t letting them off the hook, it’s just not playing the patriarchy’s game for it by never looking beyond the puppets to the dudes pulling the strings.

OP is right, unfortunately I don't have specific links but I have seen often on this sub where women here are berated for not being sympathetic to misogynistic TIF’s or considering them our “sisters”. It's not tearing down female victims of the system to not sympathize with women who actively harm other women.

The vast majority of women have some level of misogyny just from living under patriarchy. I wish all women could wake up from it and question those beliefs. I am sympathetic to confused women who are told to transition without being given other option for healing. The system is broken, thanks to the idiot activists and those in the medical industry wanting to profit. I’m sympathetic to people who suffer from all kinds of illness.

I’m not sympathetic to people who think they are better than other women because they are men now.

I have not seen someone being berated for not accepting a TIF. what kinds of threads does it come up?

I agree we should have sympathy for gnc women who are socially pressured into transitioning or felt they had no other option. I've seen threads (sorry don't have specific links) where women were told they were infighting, tearing apart the sisterhood, or being manipulated by the patriarchy, (and other things along those lines) for not supporting sexist, maladjusted TIF's.

To me, it seems like guilting women into performing emotional labor for misogynists with personality disorders, and I think it's a symptom of female socialization to have endless sympathy towards people who hate us and even want us dead. I think we can all agree we want feminism to benefit all women, even the horrible ones, but there's a limit to the amount of patience & attention women should give to manipulative, harmful people.

(georgiaokeefesgrotto)
Not from me. I've seen the Tifs and their idea of women as 'junk and udders'. I welcome them back into womanhood if they smarten up but many are cruder than truckers in a rest room on a long haul. Eff them.

(1984stardusta)
“The only reason everybody is talking about transgenders is because white men want to do it.”

Chappelle received lots of criticism for rhis joke, and more, for pointing that Mexicans or blacks wouldn't get the same treatment, genderism is a white problem.

I see no problem in people dressing up or behaving like the opposite sex, this is far from new, but I can't accept a bunch of privileged white men endorsing violence against women they will rebrand as TERFs and advocate for punching into silence. Normally women who identify as men won't do the same, so it is easier to talk with women.

But I can't start a conversation with anyone who will acuse me of feeling hate against a whole group, this is a coward accusation, without burden of proof, deeply ingrained in privilege of narrative and self entitlement from whom is so spoiled by their lack of real problems that they need to turn any dissenting voice into an imaginary enemy, they need to destroy competition, they need to be the leader of oppression Olympics even if it means to demean women.

So, being a person of color is a hard life, adding to the equation the false accusation that black women are killing white men when we don't say they are women whenever they feel like to be called so is unbearable.

Right? As a woman I’m tired of being silenced for saying anything about the trans community that isn’t “these people are the best people in the world”. This has a horrible effect on my mental health and view of self. Why are these bizarre new groups that everyone wants to talk about protected to the point that it’s hate speech to criticize or even question anything about them or what they say and do?

About transcommunity?

I can't say anything about myself.

When I say I am a biological woman I am offensive to who is not a woman and wants not only self identify as such, but also take leadership, precedence and dominance over my objective reality. On the same vein I should not use words as menstruation, breastfeeding and vagina but I need to accept meekly to be called a menstruator, and listen about chest feeding and fronthole.

I need to teach my kids to hide what they know about human biology, because I was taught it was replaced by wishful thinking.

I need to teach them to hide their knowledge, and shrink their passion about this subject to fit obscurantism.

And I need to pretend that black women and black men are subjected to more likelihood of being murdered then white men, even when they wear dresses.

I

(SCREECHES_AT_HERSELF)
I couldn't agree more. In my experience, trans men & female nonbinaries are commonly emotionally abusive, narcissistic, and hold some really gross beliefs. Some FTMs even go as far as to become stereotypical "women have it easy, it's men who suffer!" MRAs.

People like that are not worthy of my energy. They might be biologically female but that doesn't mean I owe them anything.

As for dating... I'm not attracted to male secondary sex characteristics (even if they're artificial) so no, I'm not interested in trans men. Plus the whole misogyny and "your personality dictates your sex" things are huge dealbreakers anyway.

Begone with this stupid belief that us women should have unwavering compassion for everyone, especially people who view us as lesser. No, I won't support trans men. No, being nonbinary is no better. No, I'm not going to get on my knees and kiss the toes of that "gender critical TIM" that people all think is such a gift to feminism.

(greynose_algebra)
I transitioned several years before I discovered radical feminism and became gender critical. I don't know if you would rather not hear what I have to say, but for what it's worth, I think your points are valid and I get where you're coming from.

No one is obligated to include trans people in their dating pool. No one is obligated to support/lift up/perform emotional labor for anyone at all.

No one should have to waste their time or energy on emotional vampires, no matter what their sex or gender-feelz.

You're not a bad feminist.

(Enjolraic)
It would depend on their beliefs on gender. I'm Internet friends with a TIF and she believes that biological sex is real and she's against calling women TERFs or advocating for violence against us. Basically she's a gender critical trans person. But she's a Marxist, and ideologically sound Marxists are hard to come by these days. Most TIFs seem to believe in tumblr politics, hate radfems and expect gay men to date them just because they cut their hair. Even if I was physically attracted to one, I would want nothing to do with someone with a completely different world view to mine.

I'd never want anything to do with NBs. It's one thing to have dysphoria about your sexual characteristics or be transed because of homophobia, but the entire notion of 'non-binary' is based purely on sexist stereotypes.

(Lemortjoyeux)
Some of them are just predatory as TIMs, usually the GAI BOIZ type who are basically straight women who wanted more oppression points or were so obessed by yaoi they decided to live out this fantasy. They get angry when only other TIFs date them because gay men don't take that bullshit. Local horrible TIF in my city is also a YouTuber spewing lies and distracting from others arguments because she doesn't have any argument other than "not accepting my gender identity hurts my feelings". God I hate her and she's one of the main reasons I don't associate with the local gay community.

(thewilloftheuniverse)
The only Transman i personally know was a friend from high school, who is a second generation Desi. I was especially struck at the fact that the male name she took was "Todd," exchanging her Indian female name for a white male name.

At the time it only made me confused and sad for her. Now it makes me angry too.

(Burnbookburner)
I know a Todd TIF... do you think they realize any grown man named Todd is a huge red flag?

(CatLadyActually)
How so? Is it like Chad?

David G. Brown #fundie returnofkings.com

Straight Men Will Soon Be Called Homophobic For Not Sleeping With Gays And Trannies

David is a lifelong dissident and intellectual rebel. He despises political correctness, which replaces real, needy victims with narcissistic leftists out for a free meal. Though still a young man, he has watched society descend into its present morass with great sadness, combined with a determination to help make things better. He tweets when there’s something worth tweeting here.

In 2017, straight men who refuse to date biological males dressed like women were shamed on a number of occasions for being “transphobic.” We should expect that at some stage, very possibly in 2018 or 2019, heterosexual males will also begin to be attacked en masse for not wanting to have sex with men.

Obsessions over “gender fluidity” and the rise of SJW brainwashing amongst kids, including those in elementary school, mean that expressing a perfectly normal and healthy heterosexual preference is becoming increasingly hard. In Australia, one notorious transgender Marxist, Roz Ward, went so far as to make up “statistics” saying that half of all teenagers are sexually attracted to their own sex. What will the claimed figure be in 2018 or 2019 and how will that impact on guys who know they are only attracted to women?

You don’t have a right not to date transgenders

After straight men understandably began to report transgenders messaging them on Tinder, outlets such as The Huffington Post came to the rescue, decrying the rampant “transphobia” in the dating market. In another instance of typical SJW hysteria, a contestant on The Bachelorette got into hot water for verbalizing a common enough concern of men, namely that heavily dolled-up transgender “women” regularly try to pass themselves off as biological women. With this sort of putrid political climate, it is very easy to imagine a time when not being sexually attracted to Barry or Steve will be equated with anti-gay “bigotry” as well.

Indicating the warped social totem pole that is regularly putting transgenders above women, straight females are also being shamed, albeit to a lesser extent than heterosexual men. CNN, for example, just couldn’t figure out why the majority of women weren’t open to dating this transgender “man,” as if genitalia were a completely irrelevant part of sexuality. Who would have known!

The stage is set

SJWs do not want tolerance. They want a kind of uniformity, where the groups we are meant to accept and praise actually end up dictating what someone else can or cannot do sexually. The failure of most men (or women) to want to date a transgender is a setback, for sure, but this will not stop SJWs from continuing their agenda in the same and other ways.

Even “men’s” magazines are now part of the fray, joining a series of outlets celebrating supposedly straight males who screw gay guys. GQ continued its abysmal fall in 2017 by publishing “The straight men dating men and the gay men who fall in love with them.” Salon, however, is a very unsurprising offender for its long-term pushing of straight men’s “malleable” sexualities. All we are missing at the moment are widespread calls for men to stop being “homophobic” and give themselves to other men fully.

Just wait and see

As a result of the negative reception most folks gave to the idea of dating a transgender, some might say that this article is alarmist. Well, I would counter that since we have already seen the sexualization of children according to SJW ideology, it is perfectly foreseeable that straight adult males will be encouraged or shamed into wanting sex with men. If this article is proven wrong, it will be either due to blind luck or because we see positive, long-awaited developments in the West.

Remember, probably well over 50% of discussions about sexuality nowadays concern lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender experiences, despite people of these orientations comprising perhaps 4% of the population. If this is not a sign that your heterosexuality is considered abnormal or not fully acceptable by SJWs and their enablers, I don’t know what is.

moviemeister76 #fundie dailykos.com

At what point does innocent until proven guilty kick in?

When we no longer live in a rape culture.

[Thread 1:]
Nice to see the usual dudebros in here fighting to maintain rape culture. Way to go guys.

You’re either with us or against us, amirite?

Uh, yes. Quite literally. You’re either for ending rape culture. Or you’re not.
I’ve never seen anyone here who is not for ending rape culture.

lol Uh huh.
Uh huh. If you’re serious about that charge, now is where you name names right?

Well, first of all, I pretty much already did. Second, I’d like to thank you and every mediocre man like you for adhering to the same trolling pattern for the last several decades. It’s makes it so easy to spot you all from a mile away.
To be clear, so folks know whether they really should flag your posts for making such a baseless and disgusting accusation... You’re accusing alx9090 and and Roln of being in favor of a rape culture. That right?

Sure go ahead. Flag away. I’m tired of dealing with men who repeatedly blame victims at this site and do everything they can to maintain the status quo of rape culture. Heaven forbid we deal with actual sexism on the left. Much better to just shut us women up, isn’t it?
It must be tough to continue thinking of yourself as a good person when you realize you've been part of the sexual harassment problem all along.

[Thread 2:]

Who needs justice? I’ll get us a rope. Let’s go find us some guilty-looking folks. We can string `em up and feel better about ourselves. Doesn’t matter if they even did anything.

Oh please. You guys really need to get better material. Why don’t you go back to victim blaming Louis CK’s victims and pretending those women consented to what he did.
OR, and here’s an idea, you can deal with the idea that this diary makes guys like you uncomfortable for reasons you’re not willing to admit or even deal with. Much Easier to just attack women and let us know that as long as you’re alive, none of us are ever really safe.
Setting aside the presumption of innocence is the issue for me.
You were asked a serious question and you gave a slogan answer that had nothing to do with it — unless you really do intend to do away with the bedrock principle of modern justice and the presumption of innocence.
It’s always been hard to make a point with you because you so frequently use hate indiscriminately (“dudebros” is the n-word to my ears) against people who by and large support you.

[Thread 3:]
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to a court of law. The same courts and laws which have denied justice to sexual assault and rape victims pretty much since forever.

You have to prove that a crime was committed by the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
A high percentage of these cases are one persons word against another, no witnesses, no or equivocal physical evidence, usually alcohol involved.
Taking someone’s life and freedom is extremely serious. With little evidence other than words, what is a court to do?

Please. As if innocent people don’t go to jail and guilty people set free all the time. This idea that we can only know someone’s guilt via a court, that we can only achieve justice via a court is ridiculous.
The authors of the Constitution said “the accused shall be presumed innocent until a judge or jury delivers a guilty verdict.” BTW, the accused — whether is it an elected lawmaker, a movie producer, or the school janitor — should be either acquitted or convicted in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. Any other way is called vigilante justice or kangaroo court.

What a splendid idea! Quote slaveholders who didn’t believe women should have the right to vote. Now you’ve totally convinced me.
Do you know of any other legal way? Would you really like the US turn the justice system totally upside down, and allow the law enforcement community to declare someone guilty, and then shoot the “convicted felon”? I surely don’t want that, and no decent honest prosecutor wants that. If that is really what you want, then I suggest moving to Iran, and make sure you go out of your way to be accused of a crime.

Guilt in a criminal sense can only be determined through the court system, and one that is neutral, not racist/classist/homophobic/etc., and one giving the accused access to competent representation.
You seem to think innocent people are imprisoned and guilty people are set free all the time, so what’s a few more? NO.

Pastor Adam Fannin #fundie youtube.com

You know, the Bible has several standards for clothing, for hair, for music, the men and the women's roles, the place of a child (a child should not be ruling the house), for pastors. You know, pastors have a requirement. You know, there's a bunch of churches around here like that one I was talking about where they get divorced, and the wife stays, and she says, "We'll, I'll just become the pastor. I've been here since the beginning." Uh, OK, we'll the Bible's very clear that a woman should not usurp authority over a man. A woman should not be preaching across the pulpit. Ladies can teach children. Ladies can teach other ladies, and we'll look at that. But ladies don't teach men. Men need to teach in the church.

And there's a requirement to be a pastor of the church. You can't be divorced. You have to have multiple children. And the fake churches will not obey God's standard. No divorced pastor is blameless. The husband of one wife. The husband of one wife. "So, Brother Fannin, I'm divorced, does that mean I can't preach?" No, it doesn't. It means you can't be the shepherd. It means you can't be the pastor. It means you can't hold the office of a deacon. But everything else in here is something you can do. There are things in here you can do, and the pastor's not the only position. There's a lot of work to be done here. There's a lot of people that need help with things. There's men jumping up to get the door. "Oh hey, somebody needs a Bible. Hey, somebody needs to start printing a bulletin in here." [Gesturing to someone in the congregation] This man has a full plate. He needs some help. Some people need to stand up and say, "I'll help. What can I do to help? I want this church to last, and I don't want you to get burned out." He is here in Pastor Romero's stead right now, and he is doing everything he can to make sure this church works, but you guys need to get in on it also. He needs some help; he needs some support; his family needs some prayer. It's up to you guys whether this church makes it or not. It really is; it's up to the people, and we're old-fashioned, and we're gonna do it God's way. Blameless, husband of one wife.

Vigilant! "Oh, you're a homo? Sorry, not welcome here. Take a hike."

Sober! Sober! No drunkenness in the church! Church correction! The bible says if somebody's in drunkenness, they should be kicked out of the church. The bible says if somebody's in fornication, they should be kicked out of the church. We're gonna do it God's way. Don't just justify drunkenness like all the other fake churches, and woe unto them for doing that. Woe unto them for doing that.

It says one that ruleth well his own house having his children in subjection with all gravity. He's saying you must have children to be a pastor. There's that other big church in town here. "Well, it's all right. He's done the work for years. He can just be a pastor." Uh, but what about what God said? Are you trying to bring the curse of God on this church? There's believers in the church! And they're gonna elevate a man that doesn't meet the requirements of a pastor? God's not gonna bless that. And of course, what's he gonna do? "Well, maybe the King James isn't so important. It's OK if the dykes come in and the homos come in. We're gonna have a little rock and roll. Let's get more buses, you know, and less hard preaching. No more soul-winning; that doesn't work." Yeah, the guy's probably not even saved. For if a man not know how to rule his own house, how should he take care of the church of God?

You know, the hair standards in I Corinthians chapter 11; it says a man ought to have short hair, and a woman ought to have long hair. That's God's standard. You tell that to somebody, "Oh, you're being hateful." Well, I'm just telling you what God said. I'm just telling you what God said. And you shouldn't hate me for saying it, but unfortunately, the world doesn't understand that. We in here are without excuse. We in here are without excuse. Honestly, if there were a man in here that understood these principles and he had his hair down to his butt, I'd say, "Dude, why are you living in sin?" If there was a woman in here that said, "Well, I can do whatever... all my friends, they chopped it up to here [gesturing to the top of his head], and they made it this purple-silverish color. I'm gonna do that." I'd say, "Why are you in rebellion? You know what God's commanded! I Corinthians 11, read it!"

The clothing! You know, the Bible says that your thigh is your nakedness. The Bible also says your chest is your nakedness. The Bible's teaching that from your neck to your knee should be covered up, and only shared with your husband or wife. That goes for men too. Men, you shouldn't be swimming with your shirt off. Ladies, you need to cover your nakedness. That's God's commandment. Don't break his commandment! That's the way it oughta be. "Well, that's old-fashioned". Hey, amen! Yeah it is! It's a sin to show it off; it doesn't belong to anybody else but your husband. And men, it's the same way. Don't wear shorts that show your thigh. That's wicked. That's not right with God.

Look here in Deuteronomy 22. Look at verse number 5. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." Do you hear what that says? Listen, I bring this up for a reason, because I grew up IFB, and I rarely heard this verse. I grew up IFB, seeing families that grew up conservative, and the ladies dress like ladies, and the men dress like gentlemen, and then, they got tired of church, and they fell out of church, and they started dressing like the world. And they didn't know this verse. Their principle, their foundation, was not on the word of God. We're reading this verse because we're gonna have a foundation based on the word of God. God says here that if a man comes walking in in a skirt, that's an abomination. "What are you wearing? That's disgusting!" "Well, what about the Irish?" Let's not talk about that. Let's not go... what the kilts and all, I mean there was some bad things there anyway. Go to Titus chapter 2. But he says, "A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man." "Are you telling me that my wife needs to wear skirts all the time?" No, I'm not. God is! God is! God says a woman oughta dress like a woman, and she ought to be a lady. And if she has a problem in her heart with that, that is rebellion against God's commandment. "Boy, that's so old-fashioned; you're not gonna get people around here." Well, I'm not trying to get people. I'm trying to lay a foundation that will last forever. And it's not pretty sometimes. Dresses and skirts on ladies please God. But rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. "Well, what about all my friends? They all wear yoga pants all the time." That's wicked as hell! You oughta tell them it's wicked! You oughta tell them it's obscene! "What if my family thinks I'm weird because now I just wear dresses and skirts?" Hey, dresses and skirts are classy. That makes a lady look classy. Don't look trashy, like you just came from the yoga gym. "What if my family thinks I'm weird?" Hey, what about the father in heaven that commanded you; don't you wanna please him? Don't you wanna do what he said? Don't think about your family; don't think about your friends; don't think about your investment in your closet. Think about breaking God's law. Think about having a rebellious heart against what God has said. Get your heart right. That's God's commandments. He gave it to you for a reason. Do not disobey.

God wants the gender roles to be separated. God wants it to be distinguishable what a lady is and what a man is. He wants it to be clear. He came to bring division for our own good, and we don't get that some time. He's commanded men to work. In I Timothy 5, he says, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Worse than an infidel! Dad, if you sit at home, and you don't work, and you send mom off, you're a bum! You're a deadbeat! Your worse than an infidel! You act worse than the heathen! You're breaking God's law! He's not happy with that. The flipside of the coin, here in Titus chapter 2. Titus chapter 2. Look at verse number 4: "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children," verse 5, "To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good," listen to this, "obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." Mom, if you're rebellious, you might as well cuss at the Bible, because God said for you to obey your husband. God said, "Mom, you should stay home and take care of the kids. Dad, you need to go to work." That's his perfect plan. Dad, don't act like an infidel. Mom, don't make the word of God blasphemed by being disobedient.

[All throughout this talk, members (mostly male) of the congregation can be heard voicing their agreement.]

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

[Part 3/end, goddammit Jim]

At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.

What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.

The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.

So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.

The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose. And yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.

I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.

For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.

Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.

Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles. So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.

Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.

These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

Some TERFs #transphobia reddit.com

Re: Transbiancel complains that there's NO reason why he should be a "social pariah" in the lesbian meetups he's been attending for a year and a half

image

(S_FirestoneTires)

GCS Dr. Kathy Rumer

he he was talking about how the idea of being female has always been VERY arousing to him

You know what I'm pleasantly surprised about? This is one of the few cases where someone with that profile doesn't tell people "if you don't want to suck my girldick, you're transphobic" (also, you privileged cis scum, if you want to suck Feminine Benis, that's bad and horrible because it's "dehumanizing").

Ray Blanchard found that there are GAMP straight men who like breasts and a penis, but those men want a female-looking partner, not a brutish manly AGP 40-year-old. More to the point, the AGPs had way too much prenatal T to have sexual interest in said men. For example:

Riley Dennis: "if you don't want to date someone because they have a penis, you're transphobic!"

Men in the YouTube comments: "we'll date you, Riley!"

Riley Dennis: "ewww, I don't like men!"

I have a masculine face

Everyone knows that having a craggy male skull is sure to bring all the lesbians to the yard!

I'm smart, funny, and easy to talk to

My dear delusional Red, if those qualities controlled attraction, oppressed sexual minorities wouldn't even exist. Closeted gays and lesbians could just force themselves to be straight by finding an opposite-sex spouse who is "smart, funny and easy to talk to." Freddy Mercury tried that with Mary Austin.

People are mostly friendly, kind and engage socially

It's almost like people can't control what they are and aren't sexually attracted to, and it doesn't mean they're "bigots" or hate you.

>People are mostly friendly, kind and engage socially when I approach them

>I'm a social pariah, bawwwwww!

>I have a masculine face, why don't lesbians want to get any of that?

Full galaxy-brain definition of social pariah.

(Ergative_Absolutive)

Lesbian meetups serve a few major functions:

For lesbians to hang out with women who get it, in a space where they can be honest about who they are. Straight women, even liberal ones, can be weird about friendships with lesbians. And social circles that are dominated by straight women tend to expand to include husbands or boyfriends (which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not the same as having an all-women space) and tend to involve a fair amount of talking about relationships with men.

For lesbians to meet potential sexual/romantic partners.

Did I mention meeting potential partners? Because that one's important.

Female homosexuals aren't going to see a heterosexual male, gender identity notwithstanding, as someone who shares their life experiences in the same way as a fellow lesbian. Nor are they going to see a heterosexual male as a potential girlfriend. OP is showing up to the Taco Lovers' Tacomania All-Taco Taco Fest with a platter of beef sausage.

The reality is that the woman-seeking-woman sections of all dating apps are full of MtF people and straight couples looking for a unicorn. The ideal solution would be better filters on these apps, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon and it's totally beyond your control.

If I were you, I'd be upfront and lowkey. For example:

I'm a trans woman looking for a summer fling, but very open to something more serious with the right woman. On weekdays, I'm a defense lawyer; on weekends, I'm a hiker, biker, kayaker, and amateur pastry chef (emphasis on the amateur).

Basically, avoid anti-TERF screeds and other gender politicking, don't try to bury the fact that you're trans in the small print, and don't go on about how you're a super lesby lesbian seeking a super lesby lesbian relationship with a fellow lesbian. Yes, a lot of the women using whatever app you're on will still roll their eyes and swipe left, but them's the breaks, for you and for them.

ETA: I also agree with u/FruitTreesRule's advice to you.

(FruitTreesRule)

Lesbian spaces are meant for lesbians, so don't go there.

You can try catch-all dating apps/sites and indicate you are trans. Don't initiate to women who specify they are lesbian on their profiles since many lesbians are being coerced into "giving a chance" if they don't want to be labeled transphobic. Don't put a woman in that position.

Or you can just be social and engage in friend groups and see if you meet someone the old fashioned way, but again, don't try to initiate with lesbians. Seriously, it's equivalent to a "cis" man assuming he can hit on a lesbian. It's invasive and insulting and entitled.

Perhaps there is female out there who is open to gender non conforming men, who are hormones, who have breasts and a penis. But, honestly, not many women are into that.

That is your problem, not women's.

I suggest seeking out another trans male if you are open to that.

(ilovemylesbiangf)

Probably shouldn't go to lesbian meetups if this "woman wannabe" is only interested in sleeping with them. Lesbians tend to sleep with other women.

(HorsesCantPlayHockey)

"Transdar"= knows what a man in a dress looks like.

(CallaAETHIOPICA)

Let’s see, I know why lesbians aren’t interested. It’s because you’re male!!

Jedidiah Van Horn #sexist identitydixie.com

[From "Sexual Utopia in Power"]

It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. Two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to be unrelated. Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose. Correct diagnosis is the first precondition for effective strategy.

The well-worn phrase “sexual revolution” ought, I believe, to be taken with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French Revolution, it has gone through three phases: first, a libertarian or anarchic phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a “reaction” in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow this order in the present essay.

Two Utopias

Let us consider what a sexual utopia is, and let us begin with men, who are in every respect simpler.

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for example. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage.

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would have to be twice as much sex as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Reports and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

This characteristically male sexual utopianism of the early postwar years was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about revolutionary changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things have not gone according to their plan.

What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes it from that of men?

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of “conservative” male commentators: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like 6 sex partners over the next year, and 8 over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.”[1] Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No, it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better understanding of the female mind than the average husband.

[...]

Fallout of the Revolution: “Date Rape”

A few years into the sexual revolution, shocking reports began to appear of vast numbers of young women—from one quarter to half—being victims of rape. Shock turned to bewilderment when the victims were brought forward to tell their stories. The “rapists,” it turns out, were never lying in wait for them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these “date rapes” occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and involve no threats or violence. In fact, they little resemble what most of us think of as rape.

What was going on here?

Take a girl too young to understand what erotic desire is and subject her to several years of propaganda to the effect that she has a right to have things any way she wants them in this domain—with no corresponding duties to God, her parents, or anyone else. Do not give her any guidance as to what it might be good for her to want, how she might try to regulate her own conduct, or what qualities she ought to look for in a young man. Teach her furthermore that the notion of natural differences between the sexes is a laughable superstition that our enlightened age is gradually overcoming—with the implication that men’s sexual desires are no different from or more intense than her own. Meanwhile, as she matures physically, keep her protected in her parents’ house, sheltered from responsibility.

Then, at age seventeen or eighteen, take her suddenly away from her family and all the people she has ever known. She can stay up as late as she wants! She can decide for herself when and how much to study! She’s making new friends all the time, young women and men both. It’s no big deal having them over or going to their rooms; everybody is perfectly casual about it. What difference does it make if it’s a boy she met at a party? He seems like a nice fellow, like others she meets in class.

Now let us consider the young man she is alone with. He is neither a saint nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely interested in sex. There are times he cannot study without getting distracted by the thought of some young woman’s body. He has had little real experience with girls, and most of that unhappy. He has been rejected a few times with little ceremony, and it was more humiliating than he cares to admit. He has the impression that for other young men things are not as difficult: “Everybody knows,” after all, that since the 1960s men get all the sex they like, right? He is bombarded with talk about sex on television, in the words to popular songs, in rumors about friends who supposedly “scored” with this or that girl. He begins to wonder if there isn’t something wrong with him.

Furthermore, he has received the same education about sex as the girl he is now with. He has learned that people have the right to do anything they want. The only exception is rape. But that is hardly even relevant to him; he is obviously incapable of doing something like that.

Jennifer Hartline #fundie stream.org

I see the liberal, secular feminist and the homosexual/transgender ideologies running smack into each other like bulls. The losers in this bloody clash? There will be many, but let’s talk about the most ironic losers: women.

Neither ideology respects true femininity and the beauty of womanhood. Both want to empty it of its gift and uniqueness.

Both have created a caricature of woman. Both exploit what they find useful about the female body and shun the rest. Both have reduced womanhood to only the parts that serve their agenda.

Both the modern, perpetually-contracepting woman and the transgender “woman” are sterile. The former disdains her natural fertility and procreative nature, going to great lengths to quash the nuisance; the latter insists he doesn’t even need fertility to be a woman.

The transgender ideology insists that a man can, through chemical and surgical means, simply “transition” and become a woman. Poof! It’s magic!

Gender is supposedly “fluid” now and a meaningless social construct at that.

But hold on, not so fast!

The transgender movement insists there is a distinct difference between the male and female brain; between the male and female soul. Those who “transition” are considered trapped in the wrong body — the dissonance between how they feel and think and their genitals is proof. Yes, they say, being male or female obviously matters, and there are clearly important differences.

We’re told that “men” have menstrual periods now. “Men” have abortions, too. (So much for the shiny trophy of “women’s reproductive freedom.”)

Even the liberal feminist theme show, favorite of college students everywhere, The Vagina Monologues, is now sexist and insensitive because it excludes those “women” who don’t have a vagina.

I can’t believe I even wrote the preceding paragraphs in earnest. It all sounds insane. It is insane.

In 2015, it’s just a matter of adding or removing pieces and parts, like playing with Mr. Potato Head. Or Mrs. Potato Head. (How long before that toy becomes just Potato Head Person? Any bets?)

I’ve had enough of misappropriated womanhood.

Bruce Jenner gets pumped full of female hormones, has cosmetic facial surgery, gets large breast implants, hair extensions, makeup and a push-up bra, and suddenly, he is supposedly a woman. That’s all it means to be a woman: big boobs, lingerie and makeup.

Never mind that his new breasts are useless. They’re just decoration, and garish decoration at that. They symbolize a superficial “womanhood” that’s empty of meaning or purpose beyond sexual arousal.

A woman’s breasts mean infinitely more than that. The human race can credit its entire survival up to our modern era on mothers’ breasts. Mother’s milk from mother’s breasts is an integral part of being a woman, whether the modern feminist likes it or not.

The female body is gloriously designed to grow and nurture new human life. It’s an undeletable part of the female code at the deepest level. Whether our wombs ever carry a child, or whether our breasts ever nurse a baby is irrelevant to the fact that our feminine physical nature was created for that miraculous purpose. It’s inextricable to womanhood.

That is not something any surgeon can replicate with silicone, nor any doctor with artificial hormones. Bruce Jenner’s surgeon has created a mannequin, not a woman.

Adding insult to injury is the exploitation of women’s reproductive parts in the service of manufacturing children. Women are merely “ovens” used to create babies conceived without sex for the satisfaction of same-sex couples, single parents and other couples who want to “design” their child according to their specifications.

Mothers are replaced with “donor eggs” and surrogate wombs, and neither will actually have any presence in the child’s life. Who needs a mom? All that’s wanted is the raw material and the human incubator, please.

This is a profane indignity to women, to womanhood and to motherhood. It once again reduces women to parts. Parts that can be bought, rented and used to satisfy someone else’s wants. We can’t yet grow our special-ordered kids in the lab; we still need God’s equipment to get the job done, so we gotta have some wombs to use.

Those who champion abortion, free contraception, same-sex “marriage” and surrogacy are the ones always screaming that Republicans, conservatives, and especially Catholics, treat women like “breeders” without brains or any worth of their own. Ironic, eh? Who’s zoomin’ who here?

Who really appreciates the inherent, unique gift of womanhood? Those who just want to use the egg and rent the womb but refuse the mother, or those who know that a mother is irreplaceable in a child’s life?

Who really values women? Those who think plastic surgery and pills can turn a man into a woman, or those who understand the feminine genius that goes beyond boobs and makeup?

Who really respects a woman’s body? Those who believe it’s necessary to shut down her natural, healthy fertility with carcinogenic hormones, and even intentionally damage a healthy, functioning organ with crazy devices? No way. Doing damage to a woman’s health and body in the name of “equality” doesn’t sound very equal to me.

Fertility and child-bearing are part of the whole package of a woman. You can’t claim to value women, or champion women’s rights or equality and then pick her apart like you’re scouring a used car for spare parts. You can’t take what’s useful to you and leave the rest of her.

You can’t fabricate a sterile “woman” out of a man’s body and call him a woman. A woman is nobody’s Play-doh creation. She’s the marvelous handiwork of God. Her physical body, her feminine nature, her mind, her gifts and her strengths are all designed with intent and purpose by Him out of great love.

Respect the whole woman — her body, her fertility, her nature that is complementary to a man’s, her motherhood — or you don’t really respect her at all.

PhoebeDodgedShelby #sexist reddit.com

Literally everything to do with having a victim complex and dragging men down off their pedestals and defeating the patriarchy. Like it's a fucking war now, except even the WOMEN don't envision themselves as strong enough to conquer the evils of masculinity. So literally you've NOT been oppressed, you've just realised you're shitter in a lot of ways than men so men need to behave less awesomely to compensate for your shitness. I say this as a 34 year old woman; FUCK feminism as it manifests today. I've literally contemplated suicide to get off this earth because nothing makes sense anymore.

Please don't quit this game yet. The earth needs smart people like you.

Nobody listens though. I've been called a 'traitor to my gender' for merely pointing out that false sexual assault claims by women DO happen. Just that is enough to cast me as either plain evil or just not 'smart enough' to realise all the ways my life has been inhibited by men; despite over three decades of personal experience to the contrary.

You can't reason with that level of vitriolic fanaticism.

I thought that was third wave, where’s the distinction

3rd wave = equality feminism, still irritating with the conflation of equal opportunity with equal outcome but still, generally geared towards positive social outcome for all, LGBT equality and acceptance, women should have the chance to earn the same income and status as any man

4th wave = JUSTICE feminism - FUCK MEN, MEN ARE TRASH, women deserve REPARATIONS above and beyond equality as punitive damages for all the horrid things men have done. The patriarchy must be crushed, men have NO inherent societal value or place beyond that of oppressors. The time of WOMEN has arrived.

LOL what? Women never envisioned themselves like that. They envisioned being "empowered." This is a code word meaning "I want other people to do yucky things for me exactly like before, but I'll pretend that they aren't men. We'll just take male taxpayer dollars instead of our husbands' dollars to subsidize our shitty career choices and also make up a zillion rules so that things in yucky penisy workland are less penisy and our feelings don't get hurt."

So you agree with me...?

I don't think 2nd wavers or women in general were ever "oppressed." There was just real social change back then. So yeah, I agree in that it's mostly just amped up man-hate now. They want the whole world to be vagina-friendly. Everywhere. But the victimhood thing was always there. The difference is that the modern snowflakes are angry that DESPITE the excessive feminization of the workplace (huge HR bureaucracy, parallel justice systems) earning money or accomplishing anything worthwhile outside of the home STILL requires being "masculine." The 2nd wavers were grateful just for the chance to act more masculine occasionally without becoming social outcasts. There were still wars. Crime rates were high. Cars had no power steering or brakes, and broke down often. Cell phones did not exist. A nuclear holocaust could break out at any moment. The world was a more dangerous place. They had a certain respect for masculinity and how it deals with the real physical world.

Agreed. That's really what saddens me now; if anything I see a world that needs more strong, honest, guiding male influence, especially within the younger generations. Instead this hyper feminised shit is ruining society and morality.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

Kelly Wilkins #fundie rawstory.com

Josh Vallum confessed the first hate crime against a transgender person this week in Mississippi. But, the killer’s mother is coming out now attacking the woman her son killed and buried, the DailyMail reported.

Vallum’s mother, Kelly Wilkins, said in an interview this week with Alabama.com, proclaiming her devout Christian beliefs. She claimed that her son “blacked out” when he killed Mercedes Williamson and that it had nothing to do with hating transgender people. She spent the interview using the wrong pronoun, referring to Williamson as “he” instead of her preferred pronoun “she.”

“It wasn’t about that,” Wilkins said of Williamson’s gender. “He did black out because he didn’t know. He was kissing that boy (sic) thinking it was a girl and when he put his hand in their pants and felt a penis he blacked out.”

She said that the two were “living in sin.”

“I am a Christian,” she continued. “I believe what God says. His word says its (sic) a sin to be homosexual. It also says it is a sin to kill. Josh is not gay. Ask all the girls he has dated over the years. I’m not more focused on either sin. They are both sin.”

“I am very sorry that boy lost his life,” she says of the transgender woman. “I’m sorry Josh killed him. I hope that boy cried out to God for forgiveness before he died and is in heaven now.”

Earlier this week, Wilkins blamed Williamson for her own death in a long Facebook post. She also denied again that her son was gay, despite homosexual pornography being found on his phone.

“It was a tragedy for that young person to have died. It was also wring (sic) the way he lived his life as a female when God created him as a male,” she wrote on Facebook.

Vallum was dating Williamson, but when he found out that she was a transgender woman he broke up with her.
Not long after, he became fearful that if his gang found out that he had a sexual relationship with someone who was born a man he might be killed. He stabbed Williamson multiple times using a military knife. He then beat her with a claw hammer until she stopped screaming.

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

Matt Forney #fundie mattforney.com

Insecurity is the natural state of woman. How could it be anything else? Given their lack of physical strength, a woman on her own should be frightened as hell without men to protect her. If society were to collapse, all the Strong, Independent Women™ who read Jezebel and xoJane would last about five minutes before they either found a man to cling onto or got raped and killed. In the bellum omnium contra omnes that is mankind’s default existence, a woman who is alone is a woman who is already dead.

One of the most commonly repeated tropes of feminists and manboobs goes something like this:

“You should be happy that women nowadays are independent, because it means that they’re with you because they WANT to be with you, not because they’re dependent on you.”

This is a fundamental violation of the relationship between men and women. Part of our identity as men based in women needing us, if not necessarily in a material sense, then in an emotional one, though material and emotional vulnerability often go hand in hand. That female insecurity is a crucial ingredient for unlocking our inner masculine instincts. If a girl needs me, feels that her life would end if she were to lose me, I’m doubly inspired to be there for her, to shield her from the cruelty of the world. Frankly, it’s pretty hot. If she just wants me, could take me or leave me, my gut response is one of apathy. “Yeah, whatever babe.”

Confidence doesn’t give men erections; vulnerability does.

In order to love someone else, you need to be emotionally vulnerable, more so women than men (as girls are attracted to confident men). You need to be willing to open yourself up, to give yourself over to their judgment, to risk being hurt and rejected. Without this emotional openness, any relationship you have will never go beyond the infatuation stage. But girls today are told to erect gigantic walls around their hearts, cutting them off from an crucial part of their humanity. The emotional dissonance from this feminist social engineering is why antidepressant usage and mental illness are skyrocketing among young women. Ordinarily a depressed or insecure girl would seek solace in the loving embrace of a man, but daily hits from her good friend Saint Xanax short-circuit her feminine instincts.

In squelching her inborn insecurity with you-go-grrlisms and drugs, the modern woman has become an emotional cripple. Like a fat slob eating Big Macs instead of a juicy steak from the supermarket, she substitutes having a dominant and confident man in her life with lotsa cocka and dating where she considers herself an “equal.” She views men as a life support system for a penis, an accoutrement, no different than her Manolo Blahniks or snazzy new iPhone. When she gets bored of her boy-toy, she tosses him in the trash and moves on to a newer, shinier model, and if she can get cash and prizes for trading in her old clunker, that’s just the icing on the cake.

Essentially, “confident” women are incapable of viewing men as human beings.

When manboobs and feminists say you should be happy that women today are “independent,” this is what they’re arguing for; a world in which romantic relationships are impossible. Where men are nothing more than fashion items to help women show how cool or sophisticated they are. Sorry, but homie don’t play that game. If I’m not the center of a girl’s world, I’m not going to be in her world period.

...

Real life fails the Bechdel test.

Feminists can claim that women don’t need men, but their actions put the lie to that; they need us far more than we need them. Girls will all but die without masculine attention. Hell, I’m even starting to think that the feminist agita about “rape culture” is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn’t conflict with their view of themselves as “strong” and “empowered.”

At the end of the day, there are no Strong, Independent Women™. There are only shrews pleading for a taming. All the posturing, the pill-popping, the whining and demands for “equality”; they’re a cry for help. Girls don’t want the six-figure cubicle job, the shiny Brooklyn 2BR, the master’s degree, the sexual liberation, none of it. They want to be collectively led back to the kitchen, told to make a nice big tuna sandwich with extra mayo and lettuce, then swatted on the ass as we walk out the door.

I say we give them what they want.

SteadyHandMcduff #fundie reddit.com

Absolutely. When I give my loyalty to someone, they always come first. I don't give my loyalty to the law or society; when I take on a partner, their welfare takes precedence.

How would I help them? Send them away, somewhere with cameras, so that they have an alibi while I dispose of the body. I move the body into a remote wooded area, dig a pit, body goes in, burn for half a day (have myself a camping trip) smash up any bone fragments so they're unidentifiable, then meet up with spouse for victory celebration.


So your morals go out the window just like that? It's murder, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a murderer.


So your love for your partner goes out the window just like that? If that's morality, then I don't need morals.

Yes, itd be very hard for me to say "I love you, especially the way you murdered that person. I don't care what their family is going through."

Maybe I haven't loved someone enough to see your perspective.

I haven't loved anyone that much. I'm just stating what my idea of love is. It's not something shallow that disappears when it's inconvenient.


Disappears because murdering someone is inconvenient? Wow.


YES. Honestly, this morality bullshit kind of creeps me out.

"I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a murderer." "I couldn't live with myself knowing I'm just letting someone cause harm to society."

They're talking about their significant others, but it sounds like they're talking about complete strangers. Something bad happens and they just completely turn on their partner. Sorry, guess when you got married you should have said "for better or for worse (unless you kill someone; I ain't going to jail)."
.

I guess murder isn't a huge deal to you.

Betraying someone's trust is more of a big deal to me.


So your SO kills your mother you'll still help her hide the body?


Probably. My mother can be insufferable. Plus it's not like I can bring her back by turning in my SO.

Some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

(GonnaNutInYourButt)
I think we need to recognize that women's online communities are radicalizing women into holding harmful beliefs about men.

The number of communities for women online absolutely dwarfs the number of men's communities. There are women's communities for just about anything you can imagine. Some of them welcome men, usually under the condition that the men not contradict their comments. Others actually exclude men entirely.

But the more I see these communities, the more I feel that they have a radicalizing effect on women who visit them to discuss women's issues. There are three especially alarming trends on them.

(1) The nonstop posts about men doing bad things to or around them

Reddit is home to the largest women's community on the internet. Since its creation, there have been thousands--possibly tens of thousands--of posts made about men engaging in all sorts of bad behavior.

Right now, if you visit the front page of that community, you will see the following posts:

A boy sexually assaulting a girl.

A woman stepping in to stop a domestic violence incident with a man losing control of his temper.

A post about women regretting giving men their phone numbers.

A woman about her relationship troubles with men and their unreliability.

A woman getting catcalled/sexually harassed outside of an adult store.

A woman with persistent dreams about close male friends of hers raping her.

I'm legitimately just reading down the list of top posts there right now. These are the top six.

Of course, it is natural that someone may want to discuss something that happened to him/her, but we have to take a couple of things into account. The first and most important is that a forum being spammed with these posts in a flood of examples of the wrongdoings of a social group is going to affect people's outlook on that group. If you were to do the same thing about Black people, your subreddit would be indistinguishable from the long-banned coontown and other knockoff communities.

In addition, you have to take everything you read on the internet with grain of salt. I'm not saying that all women lie, but I am saying that of the posts made on any women's board, there are going to be an enormous number of lies. People engage in attention seeking behavior online constantly. It is safe to call the internet a never ending stream of liquid bullshit with a few true stories mixed in here and there. Even a story that is based on a real life happening is often doctored and details are added in order to make a more entertaining tale. Not only do you have constant stories about bad men doing bad things and nobody stepping in, but many of them are either completely fabricated or partially altered to look especially dastardly.

It's purely and simply an echo chamber that indoctrinates women. Feminists will, by the way, frequently point at stories posted to these communities as evidence of #YesAllWomen.

(2) The enabling

One of the most difficult issues to tackle in men's rights related issues is the fact that women have in-group biases multitudes stronger than men's. In simple language, women love women, and are far more tolerant of their bad behavior than they are of men's.

Reddit is not as bad as many other women's communities, but the amount of enabling that occurs in these communities--usually in regards to male/female relationships where the woman is clearly wrong but her compatriots assure her that she's right--can turn even the strongest of stomachs.

Men's bad behavior is typically exaggerated, highlighted, and has a spotlight pointed on it. Women's bad behavior is minimized and excused.

(3) The outright hostility towards male posters

Have you ever been ganged up on in a discussion about women's issues by women?

Obviously it's not something that will hurt the average guy's feelings, as usually the feminists shrieking at you are barely coherent and usually just calling you an incel, but this affects the way that women inside of these communities will view men outside of them as well. Here's an example of a comment string I've seen, slightly paraphrased to avoid Googling:

(+5000~ post) Manbabies mad about Gillette's ad

(-141 comment) Isn't calling men manbabies just encouraging what you call toxic masculinity? That's hypocrisy.

(+274 response) Shouldn't you be on an incel subreddit right now?

We're all perfectly aware that feminists feel entitled to engage in any coordinated harassment of any man, and it's not like the real misandrists will ever change their way of thinking. But the onlookers who actually don't hate men can gradually be indoctrinated to by this sort of attack.

Conclusion/TLDR

Women's online communities are unbelievably toxic, and they constantly reinforce negative stereotypes about men. Yet nobody bats an eye at them.

I think the only "issue" with MGTOW at the minute is this obsession with feminists. Far be it from me to tell you chaps what to do (It's Men going THEIR own way) but I think this emphasis is pointless.

Feminism/sisterhood is a cult. I'd no longer try and convert a creationist to Darwinism than I would to a feminist to equalism.

It's their church, it's their nice comfy blanket which tells them whatever they do it's not their fault. It's an excuse, a safety net, a shield. It's a way of ensuring no accountability for their actions, it's a way of demanding society shifts to their expectations whilst never having to pick up a spade and help dig the fucking foundations. They actively want to put themselves in the same bracket as children, and demand the same protections (whilst substituting their parents for government.) No one likes to admit when they make poor life choices, feminism gives them an out. Can you not see why it's attractive to them? As men we don't or at least shouldn't do that. Make a poor life choice? Fucking learn from it brother and come back stronger, don't whine to strangers on the internet.

They need those sorts of communities (online or in real life) because they're pack animals. They cannot do a single thing for themselves without demanding validation. They love sharing problems rather than dealing with them because it lavishes them with attention, which is a woman's number one goal in life.

If we are MGTOW, do just that. They want these radical beliefs noticed because guess what? Attention. Much like a teenager wearing clothing their parents feel is inappropriate, these women want any sort of attention good or bad. They want it from their peers first, and men as an added bonus. Let them have their communities. So fucking what? They achieve the square root of fuck all 95% of the time with their various demands. By all means read, digest and deconstruct, but only if it adds value to YOUR well being. Never engage with that bullshit. I couldn't give a badgers dick on my toddlers opinions on the socio-political state of the country right now, so why would I care on a woman's? If you have the burning desire to engage, don't. Not your circus, not your monkey's.

As far as I am concerned, the more of these communities the better. If it stops them fucking moaning about how hard their lives are and how shit their interpersonal relationships are in mixed public spheres where I might come across it by accident it will be totally worth it.

TLDR: SO WHAT? WHO GIVES A SHIT?

Never apologise. Never explain

I'm afraid your point is missing a whole lot.

Women, both qualified and unqualified, are being put into positions of power faster than ever before. This is partially because it is an easy and brainless way to make a company look good.

On top of that, because of the systemic discrimination against men in schools, the proportion of male to female graduates - those put into positions of authority in the future - is going to grow more and more skewed towards women.

This isn't something we can ignore. The women undergoing this indoctrination are going to be the teachers, managers, doctors, CEOs, and world leaders of the future. They're going to be the ones pushing men to the farthest outskirts of society and punishing boys for being born the wrong sex.

I know that if my son's teacher had participated in man hating communities online I wouldn't want her (or him) to be anywhere near my son. It would be like an incel teaching your daughter ballet.

It's not as simple as what you're making it out to be.

(user_miki)
Women abuse each other ,much more than men abuse women.

If you think correctly, feminist women especially the ugly ones abuse normal women(nicer ones) by brainwashing and scaring them into submission with this appalling ideology.

For me it sounds like...... If I cannot get good looking,provider guys, you cannot have them too.They will not allow it and will shame the other women into submission.For this reason you can see many many nice good looking girl from decent families ,made themselves ugly, with blue hair , tattooed with piercings ..to fit ,be accepted into sisterhood and not offend the other(leaders)with their look.

You are right, it is a cult.Satanic cult.

(Cristi_Tanase)
Oh boy, you don't know half of it. Is not only men, in other parts they even destroy each other.

We had here in Romania a facebook group that had about 75.000 members, most of them women.

This group was supposedly made from "moms", young moms to be exact. And here goes the news.

A gynecologist (male) had seen his wife facebook and read the comments of the "moms" in that group. What that guy seen there was so incredible toxic that he marched right into a news media group and started to vilify the entire group of women.

2 days later, the entire group was deleted

Apparently what happened was a circle-jerk of insults, abuses, open hate, from one mother to another, on various topics related to pregnancy, eating disorders, sleep patterns, kids, child care and so on.

They were simply abusing each other! And we are talking die hard abuses, not just name-calling and insults. They were even violent in real life...

Couple more people stepped in, mostly fathers, a preacher and so on, and couple of posts from this group of "moms" were posted on the media.

The group was deleted in an instant.

Remember, this is woman-on-woman abuse in absence of men! There was absolutely no men involved, most men did not even knew about this group existence, and plenty of women got a ton of abuse (some got sick, others depressed, a ton of them quit the group due to abuse and harassment).

Women-on-women, on-line, on top of that this was a "young mother's support group", you know to offer "help, comfort and advice".

J. Warner Wallace #fundie coldcasechristianity.com

(=Trimmed for Relevant qoutes and verses=)

So How Did David Really “Love” Jonathan?

Is it possible David and Jonathan could express love toward each other, even swear an oath and enter into a covenant, without being homosexuals? Well, let’s begin by looking at the issue of the love they felt for each other. The David’s love for Jonathan is displayed in the Biblical text the very first time that Jonathan meets David (immediately following David’s defeat of Goliath and as he is presented to King Saul)

1 Samuel 18:1-3
Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan also makes a covenant with David:

1 Samuel 20:16-17
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

And later, when Jonathan is killed, David laments his loss with these words:

2 Samuel 1:25-26
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”

Two Hebrew words are used here to describe the emotion of love in these passages. The first is ‘ahab (aw-hab’) or ‘aheb (aw-habe’), and it can definitely be used to describe a sexual relationship between a man and a wife. The second word is ‘ahabah (a-hab-aw), and this two can be used to describe a similar marital love. But in the 247 times these words are used to describe love in the Old Testament, far less than 20% of the time are they actually used to describe the love between two sexual partners. Far more often, (over 4 to 1) the words are used to describe the love between friends or between God and his creation. Here are just a few examples:

*Series of Verses*

In these passages, it is obvious that the word used for love is not meant to connote a sexual relationship. Now it is clear with David and Jonathan there is no Biblical account of a sexual relationship. That is interesting in itself. If they were homosexual lovers, why is there no open description of this fact? Some (as we’ve seen above) would argue the social pressures forced the writer to hide the truth. But there are open discussions of homosexual activity in other places in the Bible, why not here? Part of the problem is in those other areas of the Bible where homosexual behavior is openly discusses, it is always in a negative sense (as something we shouldn’t do). If Samuel is cleverly hiding the homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan here, he is doing so as a prophet of God, knowing full well such behavior is offensive to God! Does that seems consistent with the canon of Old Testament scripture?

So how is it then, that David and Jonathan’s love was deeper than that of a man and woman? Well, these two men were certainly connected as brothers. In fact, they were brothers-in-arms during war. If any of you ever had the chance to talk to two friends who fought side by side in World War 2 (just watch “Band of Brothers”) you know the love between men in a situation like that is deeper in some ways than the love between a man and a woman. Is this not also a possible reading of the text here? And is this reading not more compatible with the other clear teaching of the Bible and the historic accepted traditional understanding to the relationship between David and Jonathan?"

So Why Did They Kiss?

"In this passage, Jonathan is sending David away because he knows his father (King Saul) is trying to kill David. Jonathan knows he may never see his dear friend again. So he kisses David. The Hebrew word used for this kiss is nashaq (naw-shak’) and it is used 35 times in the Old Testament. I in only 4 of these uses is the word used to describe a sexual or romantic kiss. Over and over again, the word is used to describe the cultural greeting of the time:

*Number of verses*

The kiss between David and Jonathan, when seen accurately in the majority context and used of the Hebrew word, does nothing to advance the notion they were homosexuals. Even today, we see men in the middles east continue to greet and interact with each other, utilizing a kiss to express their friendship or commitment to one another without a homosexual relationship."

So Why Did He Take His Clothes Off?

Another claim on the part of revisionists is Jonathan disrobed in front of David in some sort of sexual way or as some sort of sexual display or commitment:

*Series of quotes*

Reading from the context of the culture, 1 Samuel 18:3-5 actually describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, as Jonathan pays high tribute to the man who just killed Goliath and had earned the right to wear the armor. This hardly proves the two men were homosexual lovers.

But Does It Look Like a Marriage?

Those who interpret David and Jonathan’s relationship in a homoerotic sense also point to scripture to make the case Jonathan and David considered themselves to be married in some way. Look at this passage describing Saul’s reaction when he discovered that Jonathan was ultimately siding with David

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of “nakedness” in this verse and claim it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage describing a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about any type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul. Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply mad Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father."

So Why Does He Say David Is A Son-In-Law Twice?

But there is another passage of Scripture sometimes used to make the case for a homosexual union between Jonathan and David. It is a curious passage seeming to indicate David had two opportunities to become Saul’s son-in-law. Let’s begin with a peak at the passage in question, presented in a partial way, as it is often presented by homosexual advocates:

1 Samuel 18:17,21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.”… And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

Those who hope to interpret a homosexual relationship here maintain Saul has offered David a second opportunity to be his son-in-law because the first opportunity for David was realized through Jonathan! They argue David’s union with Jonathan makes him Saul’s son-in-law, even before David’s marriage to Merab, Saul’s daughter. But before we can truly assess what would make David Saul’s son-in-law in the first place, we had better look at the issue of ‘betrothal’ in the ancient world. In Biblical times, the moment a woman was ‘betrothed’ to a man (pledged or promised to be married to him), she was considered married to him, even though she was not yet formally united to the man in a ceremony. For this reason, a woman who was betrothed to someone and slept with another man was considered to be an adulteress. That’s right, you could commit adultery even before you were officially married. If a woman wanted to break a betrothal, something similar to a divorce would have to occur.

Once we understand this historic truth, many other passages of scripture start to make sense. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly in this law written for Israel, an engaged girl is described as a wife, even before she is officially married. In addition to this, we are all familiar with this part of the nativity story:

Matthew 1:19-20
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph thinks about divorcing Mary for what he thinks she has done. How can he do this when they aren’t even married yet? Because, (once again) this engaged woman was considered married to her betrothed, even before the official ceremony. OK, now let’s take a look at the situation with David and Merab one more time. As it turns out, David had already been betrothed to Merab; this occurred the moment he defeated Goliath:

1 Samuel 18:17-21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.” But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” So it came about at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. Now Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him. And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

This is the key to the comment that Saul makes in verse 21. Although Saul had already betrothed his daughter to David as a result of his killing of Goliath, Saul conveniently ignored this betrothal when he instead promised Merab to Adriel the Meholathite. Look at what traditional commentaries have to say about this:

*Quote here*

Now Saul’s comment in verse 21 makes sense. Saul had betrothed Merab to David twice. Once when he defeated Goliath and once here in the passages that precede verse 21.

So Were They Homosexuals?
In order to believe David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?

Hopefully this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends. True brothers in both Cause and Faith. But they were nothing more.

J.K. Rowling #transphobia jkrowling.com

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Burns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

various commenters #fundie reddit.com

Re: Today I Was Assaulted By My Biological Sister And The Police Didn't Arrest Her

[LONG POST REDACTED]

Tl;dr Sister stole 20 bucks from nephew. I ask where it is. She gets offended and we argue. She threatens me with violence and I don't back down. She starts swinging at me, I evade the punches but she cuts parts of my face, leaves two long red streaks on my chest and I call the police. Police show up, see the cuts and don't arrest her even after 'giving me the choice'.

(mikesteane)
I would give Charles the 20 pounds and write your fridge off to experience. Then cut your sister out of your life and let her dig her own grave.

PS: A useful trick if someone is throwing punches at you and you do not want to hit back is to deliberately bring your elbows up in front of her fists, if you can. A fist meeting and elbow will get the worst of the encounter and what is she going to say: "he attacked my hands with his elbows!"?

(ThePigmanAgain)

and what is she going to say: "he attacked my hands with his elbows!"?

Yes. And in this day and age she could probably get away with it too!

(TheMythof_Feminism)

Police show up, see the cuts and don't arrest her

I'm surprised they didn't detain YOU.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but you made a huge mistake. Never call the police, I have read many stories where something similar to what you describe happens (woman starts a fight, man calls police) and it ends with the man being taken away in irons.

Yeah I know that doesn't make sense, but that's how skewed things are in favor of women.... those visible cuts saved you.

(Wsing1974)
Please don't advise men not to call the police. Yes, it's true that men will often not be treated seriously, and it's also true that occasionally the male victim is the one who gets arrested.

But if we're ever going to change this scenario, we need to get female on male assaults documented. We need the statistics to show that domestic violence is not a gendered issue. We need women to be jailed over this.

We can advise men to get better evidence - like pictures, video, and confessions. We can advise them to separate themselves from women before calling. But please don't advise them to not call. That's only going to perpetuate the problem.

(TheMythof_Feminism)
Domestic violence calls do not end well for men. I will advise them on what I consider to be the best choice for the circumstances, in this instance the application of law is so horrendously skewed against men that I do not think it is a good idea to call the police.

You believe calling the police and risking a terrible outcome will accomplish this?

I would never throw a man under the bus for "the greater good". I understand your general argument but your methods are unacceptable to me.

(IronJohnMRA)
I'm sorry but I disagree completely. Mandatory arrest and no drop prosecution make this too risky of an action for me to ask men to take. For the time being, I will continue to advise them not to do it.

(Kirei64)
In my country, people are always complaining about the fact that "police don't take into account women's complaints", that women are harassed and can't do nothing. But these idiots don't realize that police also don't take into account men's complaints, and that most of men can't do a single thing when a woman tries to hit them. What you're saying is a large proof that there is cases of women who punches men unfairly (and I think that a woman saying to a man that she would "kick him in his balls" is also pretty sexist). As long as there is this stupid "women are wonderful effect", most people will not realise that women can be violent and cruel (stealing money from a 12 old nephew is heartless, and she even tried to punch you for complaining about that...) In fact, people needs to know that women can be evil too, so cases like your will not occur again.

(HeForeverBleeds)
I don't trust the CJS for reasons like this. I've experienced first hand and learned about countless more accounts of males assaulted by women at best not getting justice even after reporting, and often being treated as the abuser

People say male-on-female violence is worse and more dangerous, but a female has more recourse against a violent man than vice versa. If a man doesn't hit back, he gets seriously injured. If he does hit back, he gets arrested. And whichever he chooses, the CJS isn't going to protect him from the abuser

I'm really sorry this happened. Have you considered cutting her out of your life entirely? Would that even be possible? Toxic relationships are terrible things to endure, and her being a close relative doesn't make it any more justifiable

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: r/Relationship_Advice: [25m] my girlfriend[24f] told me she had only slept with 3 guys, her best friend [24f] blurted out that they slept with a guy every city in Europe they visited

(SomeTurdInTheWind)

We were talking about some topic and it came to Europe and she told me that they slept with a bunch of super hot guys. It seemed that everyone tuned in then. I laughed it off and didn’t make it into a big deal.

"I laughed it off". Why do guys nowadays solve everything by grinning and smiling and laughing like chimpanzees when a bigger chimpanzee threatens to beat them up?

She had previously told me that she only been with three guys. Long story short she and her friend when they went to Europe would sleep with a hot local guy every city.

This always happens. No exceptions.

When we saw each other she didn’t even want to sleep with me for three months until we were official. And now hearing how she slept with guys hours after meeting them bugs the hell out of me.

Oh, look, the same thing as always.

(bcat124)
From the comments :

I know right now that's not the biggest priority in your brain. You're hung up on images of her fucking her way through Europe. That's just your lizard brain doing lizard brain shit. Set it aside for a moment. Difference in experience? Meh. Banging around in Europe? Meh. That's not the important shit here.

We live in a matriarchy where women have all the sexual capital and take full advantage of it. What a joke

(robfordscrakpipe)
Men, ignore your natural instincts that are hardwired in your brain to help you survive and pass your genes on, that's patriarchy. Ignore your repulsion towards promiscuous, overweight, loud, unattractive women, that's all social construction. Women, if you feel the urge to sleep with that stud at the bar, go for it! Do what feels right! Forget about your boyfriend! Anyone who tells you otherwise is a horrible person who hates women and has a fragile ego and small dick.

(elephant__dick)
If this stuff was meaningless women wouldn't freak out and lie about it. Also if it doesn't matter then why do they always make certain guys wait?

(arissiro)
Exactly - the crux of the issue here is why did her current boyfriend whom she supposedly loves have to wait 3 months, while randos all over Europe had to wait 3 seconds? Why could she make him wait and not them? Why did she feel compelled to make him wait?

(COPE_OR_ROPE)
A roastie inadvertently dropped a brutal blackpill in the comment section:

Also, many guys don't understand that women often wait longer to sleep with someone they really like and want to build something long term with. If the guy is just fun for one day of a trip it doesn't matter to wait. Quick sex doesn't equal a stronger liking of someone for women, though men seem to interpret it that way.

What's the blackpill here ?

She admits that women make betas wait months for sex while Chad get's to ravage her 10 minutes after meeting.

(Thrwwwwaway6)
The blackpill (hidden behind all that delusion) is that girls wait to sleep with guys who make good providers but aren't attractive.

(arissiro)
Yip, a lot of foid delusion there which soymales will fall for. Thing is the "reasoning" itself (if we can even call it that) is incoherent: if this sex thing is important enough for some men to have to wait for - why should it be the men the women "actually want to build something serious with" that wait, instead of random fucking strangers? That's like loaning money to random people immediately without doing credit checks whilst waiting three months on someone with a good credit rating.

You and I know what's going on of course.

(Magehunter_Skassi)
I like that one other roastie in the thread too. Honorary blackpiller. If you're going to be a slut, you may as well own it instead of lying.

I love sex. The idea of finding a different guy in every city I visit in Europe sounds exhausting, but also fun. That said, I’m not too worried about how that “makes me look”.

[...]

Like I get that some people will say shit. But why would you want to start a relationship with someone who judges you for your past anyway?

(PerfectCeI)
So basically the same as... I have a history of multiple arrests for workplace violence and thiefts, many companies wont hire me because of my criminal history but why would you want to start working for a company who judges you for your past anyway teehee

Foids really have the impulse control and accountability of a 4yo child, those Saudis are right in some ways

(mantrad)
Women are nothing, and I mean fucking nothing but cum holes, the more attractive and less used the cum hole the better, that's their only value

(GuacMerchant88)
whatever her claimed total is x by 7 to get an accurate body count. it used to by x 3 before tinder and other quick hook up apps, but modern tech has allowed instant hookups for average looking women to fuck chads at a moments notice. Although roasties are collecting a higher body count and are encouraged to do so by their fellow feminists, very few are willing to be honest with potential beta providers of their true body count. They know that even most betas will not want to finance a roastie who slept with 30+ men (which is more than 75% of women in their 20s today).

I am collecting data on this trend and will post back in a few months with charts/graphs. I will be banned when I report on it but will be good info. r/dataisbeautiful will downvote it to oblivion.

The data is indeed self-reported. The sample size as of right now is only 23 women who agreed to partake. My goal is 2000 women aged 18-40. This is just taken from Tampa. I will be in Boston, NYC, and DC in the next few months and will ask women there as well. The questions are simple:

How many men have you slept with?
Have you lied to your current partner or a potential partner about the amount of men you have slept with?
If so, what number did you tell them? (18/23 admitted lying about their number to current/potential spouse)
Why did you feel the need to lie about your number?

The first 20 responses indicate a 6.7x actual body count to claimed body count.

(arissiro)
Absolutely brutal blackpill mate. Remember this is what life's like for so many men who "aren't incel" - they get laid every now and then, sure - but it's like the homeless guy who sometimes gets to finish off some rich guy's leftover lunch at a restaurant.

(hopfield)
Ahahahhahaa look at this cope:

That's literally the opposite of how it actually is.

Like imagine you're hungry but you're too tired to do much so you just slap some baloney from Wal*Mart on dome bread and eat it. It ends the discomfort from your hunger but it still sucks and is unhealthy for you and not even very enjoyable.

But later on you get yourself together and decide to be healthier and decide it's worth it to do a bit of work to be able to eat actual good food so you learn to cook and start cooking really excellent cuisine for yourself, like 5-star restaurant stuff. It's s not only healthier but a million times more enjoyable than the stupid baloney sandwich which seriously wasn't even good at all, it was just easy.

That's how casual sex is for most women. It's the sucky baloney sandwich they didn't even enjoy, but it was just the easiest thing at the time. They know if they want an actual good meal, they have to put time and effort into it.

When a woman waits a while to have sex with you, she's not "making you wait," and it's certainly not because she thinks you're "beta," it's because she knows the only way the sex will be truly enjoyable and fulfilling for her is if she spends the time getting to know you and making a connection. Then there a chance the sex will actually be like a 5-star meal instead of a baloney sandwich. If she'd had sex with you sooner, it would have sucked for her and not even been enjoyable. She waits because she likes you enough that she'd actually like to have GOOD sex with you and maybe keep having good sex for a long time, instead of having bad sex that would make her want to never see you again.

Women aren't like men. They don't enjoy casual sex like men do. There are even numerous scientific studies showing women are unlikely to orgasm during casual sex and are likely to regret it and not really enjoy it. Putting the time in before having sex literally makes women enjoy the sex itself more, if they don't put the time in and just have sex right away the sex will be garbage like a Wal*Mart baloney sandwich.

They "make you wait" because they actually want the sex to be good and know it won't even be enjoyable for them if they just have sex right away.

"likely to regret it and not really enjoy it."

Then why the fuck do they willingly do it??? Almost as if these cucks are fucking stupid

Girls regret it so much that they go hunting for one-night-stands with Chad week after week after week.

Not even an incel. Just have to post and point out this guys a retard.

The making you wait is about making sure you've invested enough time and money into her so that you can't bail when you find out how much of a cunt she actually is.

This is some 'we wuz kingz' level coping right here. what a soy.

(Big_Iron_PP)
I wrote a poem for the OP:

Fish and dicks down in London

The two met near the Thames

He had a noble accent and

His name, I think, was James


In Paris, the Eiffel Tower

Wasn't what she tried to climb

Tho it was hard like ancient iron

Jaques was a stunning mime


In Amsterdam, where the smell

Of weed hung in the air

The dealer Daan van Dorn and her

Oh, they made a lovely pair


Madrid was hot and sticky

She siesta'd for a while

And after one bull fighting match

She dodged Juan's cum in style


In Venice on a galley

She nigh fell of and drowned

Cause it was all a shaking

When she the oarsman found


Berlin, she really loved to see

What a truly German city

She was a bit surprised when things

With Franz turned to shitty


Budapest of Hungary

She was eager to test

And Jànos did not disappoint:

He was well hung like the rest.


And finally, in Moskva cold

Her journey came to an end

She met you in a bar

And loved you as a friend

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

Sally Edwards:
This isn't about denying a creator, it's about there being nothing about transgenderism in the Bible. And there isn't.

Amos Moses:
WOW .... because i have been in NUMEROUS conversations right here on this forum ..... where it was claimed that it DOES ...... so which is wrong ..... YOU ..... or the "TRANSGENDERED" person i had the conversations with .......... do tell ..... which of you is a liar ............

Sally Edwards:
Look Amos, it isn’t hard. Either present me with scripture that specifically addresses transgenderism or admit it does not appear anywhere in the Bible. And invite anyone you know to do the same.

Amos Moses:
as i said .... AGAIN .....i have been in NUMEROUS conversations right here on this forum ..... WITH "TRANSGENDERED" PERSONS ...... or so they claim .......... where THEY claimed that it DOES appear in scripture ...... and that it is NOT a SIN ........ so are YOU ..... or the "TRANSGENDERED" person i had the conversations with LYING .......... do tell ..... which of you is a liar .............. YOU are on the "TRANSGENDERED" side of this issue ..... your position is DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to their position ...... you both CANNOT be telling the truth ....... so ..... AGAIN ...... which of you IS LYING .....

Sally Edwards:
So you can't name the scripture. Consider the matter settled. Thank you.

Amos Moses:
MATTHEW 19 ........ that is the scripture they used .............. so WHICH OF YOU IS LYING ..... the "transgendered" person OR YOU ...........
OR since they are saying it does talk about them and that it is not sin and YOU are saying it does not talk about them .... YOU are calling them LIARS ..............
do i understand your position correctly ............ those "transgendered" persons LIED .........

Sally Edwards:
I don't care who used it. It doesn't say transgendered or specifically refer to them. They are wrong and so are you.

Amos Moses:
so when it says ..........
19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
that is not them ...... and YOU are calling THEM LIARS ............ and they are wrong and you are right ..... WHY .............

Sally Edwards:
Eunuchs are not transgendered people. That's why.

Amos Moses:
WHY .... who says ... YOU say so ..... WHY .... what are YOUR qualifications to make that judgement ...... those "transgenders" are reading the exact same text ...... what makes you smarter than them ...... are YOU a "transgender" ..........

Sally Edwards:
Because they're not transgendered people, Amos. They have entirely different definitions. Do you know what a transgendered person is? Maybe you don't and that explains why you're so unsympathetic to them. A eunuch is a sexless person. A transgendered person still has a gender.

Amos Moses:
they were TRANSGENDERED persons saying that ... are you calling them stupid ...... that they do not know what they read and they do not know WHAT they are .... YOU are SMARTER than they are as to WHAT THEY ARE ............. ARE YOU SERIOUS ............. and then YOU have the temerity to say " Do you know what a transgendered person is?" .... are you saying THEY do not know ...............

Sally Edwards:
In the first place I'm sure they didn't say that, I think you're probably misquoting them. Secondly it's not a difficult concept, the idea of transgenderism is relatively new, and so it could not possibly have appeared in the Bible.

Nicole Russel #transphobia thefederalist.com

The U.S. Supreme Court hears a landmark case on gender identity and sex Tuesday, in oral arguments for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. James Shupe offered his perspective in an amicus brief for that case.
The following is an interview between me and Shupe, who made waves for being the first “legally non-binary person” in the United States. Shupe achieved clarity through therapy, and returned to life as his birth sex even though the LGBT community shunned him. He’s begun to share his story and speak out against the dangers of transgender medicine.

In 2016, an Oregon circuit court ruled Shupe could change his gender to nonbinary, the first legal ruling of his kind. LGBT activists lauded it as a landmark decision that now plagues Shupe.
Here’s a closer look at his experience living as the opposite sex, regretting it, returning to live as his birth sex, and becoming a vocal opponent of transgender medicine altogether. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
For readers who may be unaware of your journey, describe why you decided to become the “first legally non-binary person” in the United States?
I experienced a major mental health crisis at age 49. I began researching psychiatric issues on the internet. It didn’t take very long for me to stumble upon gender identity disorder, transgenderism, and transsexualism.
At first, I was skeptical that I could actually be a female based on this newly discovered thing called “gender identity,” something I’d never heard of before because I’d always understood myself to be a male. But numerous medical and media articles describing mental health issues disappearing after undergoing a gender transition quickly convinced me that I was a woman and that transition would fix me. I also discovered the Department of Veterans Affairs had a newly launched transgender medical care program [that] erased all of my doubts completely.

At the time, I was especially vulnerable to being duped into believing that I was actually a female trapped in a male body despite not feeling like one for two reasons. 1) I had fragile mental health and was desperate for a cure. 2) During my military career, I’d often cross-dressed for sexual pleasure and had an attraction for men while dressed as a woman, a problem I’d acted out on during several occasions.
So this newly discovered information about being a female because of gender identity based on “feeling like a woman” was a much more palatable explanation for what I had previously understood my behavior to be per military regulations: transvestism.
So, armed with this new information and false beliefs about myself, I immediately began identifying as a transgender woman, mimicking the role of a stereotypical female, and taking female hormones. I also planned to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery to have my penis cosmetically reshaped into a vagina. I was born in 1963, so I’m older than the theory of gender identity, a term first used for transsexuals in 1966 when John Hopkins opened their gender clinic.
Unfortunately, all of this turned out to be delusional thinking. By the end of the charade, I’d come to the realization that my sex change was a failure and a hoax and by then I was just as desperate to escape being legally classified as female as I was previously was to solve my mental health problems.

After a good-faith period of participation in the grand gender experiment, I came to believe the whole thing was smoke and mirrors, complete quackery. By then I knew I wasn’t a female and like others before me, I had similarly discovered by trial and error that changing your sex is impossible. You could say that becoming non-binary gave me the means to save face and as a byproduct, I became famous for doing so.
What does it mean to become non-binary?
Like everything else with gender, non-binary is a made-up term. It’s a “catch-all” terminology for all of the transgender identities that fall outside of male and female. It can mean anything from you think of yourself as transmasculine or transfeminine, or neither male or female, or even a combination of the two.
How long did it take before you realized your quest to become non-binary was actually a result of trauma?
It wasn’t until late 2018 and early 2019 after two psychiatric hospitalizations that I was able to face up to the truth about myself and my sexual behaviors. Once I was willing to do that, I became familiarized with what Dr. Ray Blanchard had correctly theorized about men like me decades ago: that I am sexually attracted and aroused by the idea of myself as a female.
Dr. Blanchard claims there are two types of transgender women: homosexuals attracted to men, and men who are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as females. The latter is the most prominent population group in western countries, and sadly that’s the motivation for all of these middle-aged men such as myself who begin to believe they are women after what’s essentially a sexual fetish has been undiagnosed, gone untreated, or been misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, and has then escalated and developed into an alter ego female personality.

First, my sexual behaviors were a coping mechanism for my very painful mental health issues that were rooted in the trauma of my childhood sexual abuse as well as violence I’d experienced and witnessed. Second, I was also now feeding what had become an escalating sexual addiction that was being fueled by pornography and yet another sexual paraphilia I’d developed: masochism. Experts in these fields of expertise state that sexual paraphilias are often comorbid and I agree.
Who bears the blame for your transition? You? Your doctors?
I’ve gotten feedback that insinuates that I got exactly what I asked for from my medical providers during my two gender transitions. But the truth is my doctors and mental health professionals bear significant blame, because the work of Blanchard and others on autogynephilia was published all the way back in the 1980s, yet most psychologists and psychiatrists either know nothing about it or intentionally chose ignorance. It’s framed as an unpopular diagnosis.
When I confronted my caregivers at the VA that had rubber-stamped me with gender dysphoria instead of a sexual paraphilia and asked to be reevaluated, their response was to fire me as a patient and then claim that they had no experience treating sexual paraphilias. However, the VA has already done studies explaining why people like me are acting out sexually but the folks treating me didn’t put two and two together. Instead, they fed and enabled the delusion that I was a woman, making them the most culpable.
Describe when and how you realized you needed to “de-transition.”
Becoming non-binary was like redoing the whole gender experiment all over again with different parameters and then getting the same outcome. I didn’t stop taking hormones and by then I had an even bigger mess to walk back because I was no longer a relatively obscure transgender woman. I now had international fame associated with the landmark court decision to cope with, making reclaiming my birth sex much more difficult.
But admitting and accepting the truth about myself gave me the strength to reclaim my male birth sex. And after I did, I began treatment for my correct diagnosis: a transvestic disorder with autogynephilia.
What does “de-transitioning” feel like? Is there a feeling of loss? Anger? Relief? Is it harder than transitioning?
There was no sense of loss and it’s certainly easier than transitioning because you’re not fighting against your biological reality, societal pushback, and forcing others to indulge your delusion.
I do have plenty of anger about having been medically experimented on by people with advanced degrees who should have known better, leaving me feeling duped about having fallen for the quack theory that I have a gender identity. I now realize that I don’t.
I was falsely led by mental health practitioners to believe that my feelings decided my sex, but that’s neither scientific, measurable, nor enduring because my feelings can and have changed. I’ve come to realize and accept that the only thing capable of reliably grounding me to reality is my male chromosomes and reproductive system.
All of this legal fiction and outright fraud has indeed left me very bitter and angry. I want the people who have caused me physical and mental harm held accountable for their actions and roles in the medical experimentation that was perpetrated against me.
Do you believe most people who have decided they are transgender would have been better off remaining their biological sex?
Yes, I believe everyone would be better off being recognized solely as their biological sex. The medical procedures being touted as “gender transitions,” if they work at all, are in fact nothing more than cosmetic changes to people’s bodies. I’m proof of that.
But here’s the biggest thing: even if you could somehow argue the medical treatments are legitimate hormonal and surgical procedures, lying to the patient about being another sex based on the pseudoscience of gender identity and forcing everyone else to play along is nothing short of medical malpractice and legal fiction.
How did you decide to go from a non-binary person who has de-transitioned to somewhat of a public critic? Is your personal story well received?
First and foremost I had to do so because people were continuing to use my court decision to put more and more non-binary sex markers on state driver’s licenses, and they were also continuing to write about my court case in academic and legal journals. And this was occurring against a backdrop of readily available information on the internet, my Wikipedia page, and on my personal website explaining that I had reclaimed my birth sex. Some of these folks were intentionally casting me in a false light to advance gender ideology.
What are your expectations for the case SCOTUS is about to hear, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as it relates to your personal journey? Should gender identity be protected under the law like sex?
I think the justices will rule in favor of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes and protect religious freedom because the male plaintiff, who claims to be a female is, in my opinion, the exact same thing as I am: A cross-dressing man that is sexually aroused by the image of himself as a woman. I sincerely believe that he and I both suffer from a transvestic disorder and with what Dr. Blanchard refers to as autogynephilia.
While I believe that autogynephilia is a mental health problem worthy of treatment and compassion, based on my experience I think it’s unworthy of public or employment accommodation, even if it has progressed to gender dysphoria.
Like myself, because the man in the case who now identifies as a woman’s transvestic disorder has apparently gone untreated for probably decades, and because quack theories about gender have been allowed to proliferate and infiltrate society and law, his sexual identity problem has apparently gotten so out of control that he now believes he’s a female. That’s unfortunate, but he’s not a woman and neither was I. So I feel the Supreme Court needs to set the nation straight about that in order to protect females and religious freedom.
We need to quit wasting so much time and resources and return to a clear-cut definition of biological sex because a lot of children are now being harmed by gender ideology too. As to whether gender should be protected under the law? The answer is no, because it’s based on nothing more than personal feelings, perceptions, stereotypes, and pseudoscience.

Gunner Q #sexist dalrock.wordpress.com

Nope, totally helpless is good. Men say “I love you”, women say “I need you”.

“Take some deep breaths and walk around for a while, then please try to explain why you are so upset by women using tools around the home.”

You want my personal motivation? Buckle up. I live in a society where women are so safe and provided for, they have zero need for unsexy men like me. Guess what? If Barbie doesn’t need me then she doesn’t want me. She marries Welfare and rides the carousel until the Wall hits and leaves her a burned-out waste of a human soul, while I starve for sex and get treated by society like a drone.

I lose. She loses. My country burns.

Does it bother you that I want to spook women into good behavior? To push their faces in the facts of how much that fish needs a bicycle? To sabotage their ability to survive without a man around? I want to do it because it works. The Democrats have been scaring women into obedience for decades with great success. Even Christ did no less when He repeatedly warned us of Hell. Women are creatures of fear. Fear motivates women in healthy directions. Taking away her fear is like taking away a man’s courage. The result is loathsome, unmotivated androgyny.

I live in Androgyny, USA. The men are allowed little chance to strive & succeed, or even trade friendly punches, eventually slouching into parodies of masculinity such as lumbersexuals. The women fear nothing and therefore stop exerting themselves, inflating like pool toys, their minds devolving to a level of stimulus-response that would shame a worm. How did we get here? Safety first! Barbie must always be safe!

Either we frighten women into marrying early and young, ripping away every “I don’t need no man” crutch possible, and in the process giving men the chance to be heroes, or the West will continue its decline into a matriarchal slum of men checked out on video games and women checked out on social media. Neither wanting to live in this Brave New World of safe spaces.

That’s why I don’t want Barbie to feel safe, to be competent in my absence. She is a woman and therefore, the price of respecting a Beta like me is living in a constant state of mild fear to which I am the answer. So be it. I will be her hero and she will be my cheerleader with benefits. I can rent domestic servants. I can’t rent admiration and respect.

That is Christ’s own attitude, right there. He doesn’t want us because we’re useful. He wants us because we’re grateful.

Thank you, that needed saying.

dirtyPirate #fundie reddit.com

fucking hell, my grandmother had 2 babies and 500 head of cattle by the time she was 14, she had 3 babies and was widowed and sold the cattle to open a whore house when she was 16.

tell me again how a 14 year old is not a woman and I'll show 40 generations of my family that married and reproduced before they were 15.

That's great for her, but for every 14 year old girl like her, there are hundreds who get used by much older men and end up being scarred for life by it.

who are you to judge what's good for someone else? who are you to tell other cultures how to transfer land, fortune and DNA? Your judgement of people and desire to place your societal norms on others reeks of fascism.

someone else in this thread pointed it out better, millions of years of evolution can't be overcome by 100 years of societal change, the virility of youth is the whole point of discussion here.

What the fuck are you gonna talk about with a teenager?

Nobody gives a fuck what a young woman says anyway.

What possible fucking common interests could you have?

obviously the only common interest would be procreation, young men are not capable of maintaining a family and older women are not capable of creating a family.

Doesn't make it right. You really think your grandmother appreciated being used like a breed mare that young? Being capable is much different from being physically and emotionally ready.


oh shit, who are you to judge 40 generations of my family? Who are you to determine how mature a woman that died 100 years ago is?

And guess what.. she was the fucking MADAM, (you don't really think the owner of the whore house is turning tricks?), it's actually a pretty good commentary of what she thought of men.. she wrote about what dumb brutes men were controlled only by their sex and how easy it was for her to exploit that. She also killed 8 men over the course of her lifetime.

your judgment is shit, you're ideas are bad and deserve to be ridiculed.


SnowWhiteQueen #racist stormfront.org

Re: Black female university journalist writes that it's racist for White males to exclusively date White females

Where are all of these white men who only date or prefer white women? I seriously doubt any white man ever told her that he only dates white women.

I see white men with black women all the time where I live. It's the latest trendy interracial couple and has been on the rise for about 10 years in my town.

As for this idiot and her whining.

At the root of your exclusion of women of color from your dating pool

All white men should exclude 'women of color' form their dating pool.

Further, straying from white women as your partners of choice could have dastardly consequences that result in the dilution of your family and your own perceived whiteness.

Yes, racemixing will kill off white people. White people need to see that the only thing dating or marrying interracial will do is result in the death of European people. Any white person who doesn't see this or doesn't care is an idiot.

And perceived whiteness? No you fool. European people exist genetically like any other race.

and white privilege is as valuable as gold in a country overflowing with Trump apologists and white resentment.

There you go again getting hung up on this fictional non-existent white privilege and blaming it for why white men choose to date white women. In your stupid ignorant mind the only reason any white man would ever prefer white women is because of white privilege.

Many women of color are encouraged from a young age to use skin-lightening creams, use apps to make their eyes wider and conform to white societal standards of beauty. The entire world is tied into this white privilege.

Boohoo cry me a damn river. Black women are the ones who choose to adhere to these beauty standards. No one forced them to. You black women only whine about white beauty standards because you know that 'black is beautiful' is a bunch of bull**** and an attempt to make black women feel better. There is a very good reason that a whole entire industry exist around making the hair of black women look nothing like real black African hair. And that's because black women know that that black peoples hair is complete crap and they have to change it to look nothing like their natural hair. Don't blame white people for the beauty standards you choose to copy.

Saying that you prefer certain women to others not only reinforces stereotypes about women of color, but white women too. Arguing that you prefer white women based on the presuppositions that white women are inherently more beautiful, passive, kind or financially-stable is — you guessed it — racist!

And not only is it racist, but it’s insincere.

Who cares what black women think is racist? They think everything they don't like or agree with is racist.

It's not a stereotype to say that white women are more beautiful, kind and passive than black women. It's the truth most of the time.

And black women are the last people on earth who should be complaining about stereotyping people or being insincere.

So she's trying to nag and White-Guilt some poor sucker into dating and/or marrying her. Yeah right.

And it'll probably work. I have no doubt some wimpy white male loser will date her. I see it all the time where I live. I can't go anywhere now without seeing some loser white male wimp out with his hideously ugly black girlfriend.

Black females have like a triple race card they play. They get mad when White men won’t date them. They get mad when Black men pretend to like them and then bang them but then leave immediately and turn them into single mothers. They get mad when Black men date White women. But when a Black woman is somehow able to date a White man, they oooohh and aaahhh over it like it is the most amazing thing on earth, because they know that the best a person can get for themselves is a White. Black women (and men too, but mostly women) were the most hysterical about Meghan Markle marrying Prince Harry. It was all they talked about on Twitter for months. They think that just because we have now broken some kind of magical race barrier because a sheboon married a White prince, that somehow this fantasy can possibly happen for them too. They believe that maybe White men may be more open to dating them now because of Prince Harry. But that was a one time fluke, and Harry most likely has undetected tumors or cysts in his brain that caused a severe lapse in judgement. Either way. They are already having marital problems, even the lying Jew press admits it here and there. I don’t expect them to last more than five years, even though they are now unfortunately having a kid together. Blacks are even saying on Twitter that they hope the kid comes out really dark skinned, just to rub some more crap into the Royal family’s face. They really can’t get over this psychotic love and hate thing they feel for us.

Black females are a bunch of hypocrites. When it's white women dating black men they whine about how white women are stealing black men from black women. As if black men can't decide who they want to date and have to be manipulated into dating white women. But when it's black women dating white men that's ok, not a problem at all.

They see black women dating and marrying white men as a way to get back at white women who they can't stand, as a way to push black women as being better, more attractive and more desirable than white women and as a way to get their filthy hands on the white man's bank account. For black women dating or marrying white men is about revenge and money.

Some white men will go along with this and date or marry black women, if only because it makes white men look progressive and anti racist. Throwing their genetics into a pile of dung all so they can be seen as progressive and get liberal and multicultural brownie points.

It’s already being said that if a man doesn’t date a “transgender woman” he’s a bigot and transphobic.
When You Say “I Would Never Date A Trans Person,” It’s Transphobic. Here’s Why.

I would never date a guy who dated anyone transgender. Eww! That's just nasty. But if white men are stupid enough to date black women then dating trannys is just right around the corner. That will be the next dating trend. Men dating girly dudes instead of real women.

Shinra1 #fundie mmo-champion.com

BBC - A Pakistani woman who was set on fire for refusing a marriage proposal has died of her injuries
Maria Sadaqat, a young schoolteacher, was attacked in her home by a group of men on Sunday and died in hospital in Islamabad on Wednesday. Her family say she had turned down a marriage proposal from the son of the owner of a school she had taught at. Campaigners say attacks on women who refuse marriage proposals are common in Pakistan.

Maria's father has said the school owner was one of the men who attacked his daughter. Police told the BBC that the men beat her and doused her in petrol before setting her alight near the hill resort of Murree, not far from the capital. She suffered serious burns on nearly all of her body. Local media report that she had 85% burns.
...
Nearly 1,100 women were killed in Pakistan last year in so-called honour-killings, the country's independent Human Rights Commission says. Most are by relatives, but a small number carried out by people outside the family are also related to perceived loss of honour, correspondents say. Police said earlier this year that village elders had ordered the murder of a teenage girl because she helped a friend to elope.
Campaigners say most "honour killings" are not reported.
The Council of Islamic Ideology proposed making it legal for husbands to "lightly beat" their wives. Religious groups have equated women's rights campaigns with promotion of obscenity.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36425946


It's not a big deal this is like a one off. I'm sure people will make wild generalisations and drag in a bit of racism to make themselves feel better but ultimately this issue is none of the West's business. Let countries handle their own Human Rights issue. I can't believe that some people are already calling for Western intervention in the form of treaties. Keep your nose out of it more like.
What's more this is not an Islamic issue, it's cultural. Islam has nothing to do with this.
Lots of women die from male violence/abuse in the West but that's not sexy and sensationalist news is it now?

If they are so peaceful how about you go live in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. See how long you last as a westerner.

Saudi Arabia does't have a rape problem. Are you aware of just how strict and overhanded their sex crime laws are?
https://unitedhumanists.com/2016/04/12/gang-rape-victim-sentenced-to-200-lashes-six-months-in-jail-in-saudi-arabia/

What your link doesn't say (to anyone who is actually following this discussion ) is that the King of Saudi Arabia gave the victims an official pardon and they were not actually lashed or jailed.
In addition the perpetrators of the gang rape were sentenced to 1,000 lashes and imprisonment up to ten years
Nice try but you just proved that Saudi Arabia has strict sexual assault crimes just because they might have sexist laws in place for the victims doesn't negate that.
Why were they sentenced to begin with?

the sentencing is justified and it's clearly written in the link, that is, it is illegal for women to be alone with men who are not related to them. This law was put in place to protect women (and men) from putting themselves in situations which would inspire rape. Before you say victim blaming this is no different to the loud groups that question women about what they were wearing and why they were out so late or why they got into the car with a stranger.

Firstly, women have rights over their own bodies and that includes the right to be alone with whoever they want. You have no right to decide who a woman can spend her time with and you certainly have no right to punish her for it.

Secondly, I like how you avoided talking about how Saudi husbands demand sex from their wives whether the wives want to or not. People like you are the reason millions (billions) of women are abused every day.

If you don't want to follow the particular laws of a country or respect them for that matter, don't live there. I wouldn't bring forbidden animals or any animal in my luggage without declaring it into Australia for example but I would feel horrible about leaving my pets at home. But ultimately the law is the law. And in this case it's their because of religious reasons. In Islam it's illegal for men and women who are not related to be alone and there is nothing wrong with that. I respect people's religious views. I think you should too.

There is a certain expectation to have sex with any marriage regardless of religion/race. Plenty of divorces happen when needs are not being met. In the bible it says that women must submit themselves to their husbands and there is another verse that I cannot recall that supports this idea that women should be prepared to meet their husbands need which includes sex. Like I have been saying since page one this is not a Muslim issue, hell it's not even a Christian or religious issue. Men demand sex from their wives all the time. Women are victimised by men across race, religion and culture. Why are you loath to admit this?
The law about not being alone with strangers of the opposite sex is not sexist because it applies to men as well.

You say that the bible is not law anywhere but the Qu'ran is. I hope you realise that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state not just in name but in practice too. 99.99% IF not 100% of their citizens are Muslim I don't see the problem with the law reflecting the religion which everyone practices as has been historically the case in the West with Christianity. Who are you defending? The muslim women who actually support the law which you say is sexist? Saudi Arabian women do not need you to cape for them they are happy living under the sharia law which is a part of the religion they practice.

Jim #racist #wingnut #sexist blog.jim.com

[From "Deus Vult"]

Trump cannot get stuff done, because he is merely president, and the permanent government is full of people that hate him.

But it is not just the permanent government. His political appointees are in bed with his enemies, and are subverting his agenda. Two years after Hitler was elected, Hitler had a Nazi running ever boy scout troop and every trade union chapter. Trump cannot even get a Trumpist running border security.

The one area where Trump has been successful is putting his people in the judiciary. Trumpist judges, though still massively outnumbered, are coming in at every level. Trump has been effective in appointing judges, because he has a big bench he can draw upon, which bench knows who whom, which bench is self policing, which bench can be relied upon to carry out his program without him needing to be on their back. Personnel is policy, and the Federalist society has a supply.

Reflect on the Federalist society: They have their article of faith – original intent. And they have a network to identify their fellow faithful. Just as Constantine adopted Christianity that provided him with a cohesive group to staff his government, in a Roman Empire disintegrating from elite incohesion.

To govern, you need a synthetic tribe, which Hitler had, which Constantine adopted, and which Trump lacks, except for the federalist society which is narrowly focused on judicial process.

The Federalist article of faith (Original Intent) that provides unity and cohesion is also an effective antibody against enemy outgroups. It is something no leftist can admit is even thinkable – to them, just words with no meaning that they dare conceive of. So when leftist entryists attempt to infiltrate the Federalists, they use their shibboleths incorrectly, like a Marxist purporting to be channeling Adam Smith, and wind up babbling random nonsensical meaningless scripted formulaic NPC gibberish.

We, on the other hand, agree with the leftists, that original intent is not really going to fly, while we agree with the Federalists that judges exercising executive, legislative, budgetary authority is intolerable. One emperor is a stationary bandit. A thousand little emperors is mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. We, however, propose a solution far more radical than that of the federalists – that the final court of appeal should be the Sovereign, should be Moses, the King, or the President, and he should be able to intervene in any case, and fire any judge. We also propose William the Conqueror’s “forms of action”, meaning that judges should be reduced to data entry clerks filling out forms that result in remote procedure calls to a system of central databases, similar to the system used by Australia’s border control force for dealing with “Illegal persons”. (Australian Border Force is Judge Dredd with more typing required than Judge Dredd had to do, but the same refreshing speed, efficiency, and absence of lawyers and priestly robes as with Judge Dredd.) William the Conqueror’s “Forms of action” kept judges in line for seven hundred years, and modern databases and remote procedure calls make William the Conqueror’s solution lightning fast, so that it can be applied by a cop on the beat, after the fashion of Judge Dredd and the Australian Border Force.

We have our mailing lists and forums, like the federalist society. What we don’t have is some articles of faith, a canon, a creed, a catechism. Constantine’s Christians had a creed. Trump’s federalist society has one. By getting agreement on certain principles, we can identify our fellow faithful, we can provide a tribe capable of governing. Our basic plan is that someone grabs power, needs a tribe to actually govern. Ideally, a warrior grabs power at gunpoint, swiftly discovers that guns do not suffice, realizes he needs a priesthood, looks around for a priesthood, finds us, as Constantine found Christendom, and Trump found the Federalist Society. When Trump appoints someone in charge of border security, he does not necessarily get someone who favors border security. When Trump appoints a Federalist Society judge, he reliably gets a Federalist, as Constantine reliably got a Christian, and Hitler reliably got a Nazi.

The political appointees that Trump appoints are frequently disloyal to Trump and hostile to his agenda. The Federalist Judges he appoints are loyal to federalism, thus reasonably loyal to Trump and supportive of his agenda. Indeed the left regularly complains that federalist judges are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than they are to federalism, which is not true, but has a substantial grain of truth in that federalist judges appointed on the basis of their federalism are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than are political appointees appointed on the basis of loyalty to Trump and his agenda. The Federalist society polices itself. Trump is not having much success policing Trump political appointees.

[...]

So: here are the articles of the Canon:

Throne
Altar
Freehold
Family
Property

Throne

Division of powers, divided sovereignty does not work, more rulers means mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. A stationary bandit has better incentives than a mobile bandit.

Altar

You cannot separate state and church. The church will undermine the state and take state power for itself, or the state subvert the church, or both at once. Harvard is our high holy Cathedral. A holiness spiral ensues as the priestly classes, the professoriat, the judiciary, and the media, pursue power by each being holier than the other. Obviously we have a state religion a state religion that every day becomes crazier, more dogmatic, and more intrusive, and that state religion needs to be formalized and made official so that the high priest and grand inquisitor can stop holiness spirals.

[...]

Freehold

Freehold necessarily involves and requires rejection of the principle of equality before the law, and property rejection of equality of outcomes. Not all men were created equal, nor are women equal to men, nor is one group or category of men equal to another. Stereotypes are stereotypical, because the stereotype is usually true for most individual members of the group or category.

We have never had equality before the law, and are having it less every day. Cops have a special right to use violence, blacks have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted, similar to that of the traditional aristocracy, Hispanics and illegal immigrants in California have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted.

State building is coalition building to rule. We need a coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, ruling the stupid, the disruptive, and the destructive. The doctrine of equality means you cannot reward the elite with status? What! Of course the ruling elite is going to be rewarded with status, and that is exactly what is happening.

The ruling elite always gets rewarded, the ruling coalition always gets rewarded. Members of the ruling coalition always get a superior right to use violence, and a superior right to not be insulted. That is the way it is, and that is what we saw when white people were ethnically cleansed out of Detroit. The doctrine of equality before the law was always a lie intended to destroy the coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, to guilt the best people into surrender, so that they could be destroyed by a coalition of the worst.

Freehold means that we acknowledge that some state power is in fact private property, and the sovereign lets his loyal vassals enjoy their privilege, because if he tries to meddle, he will be overwhelmed by detail and complexity, so best to formalize that privilege and make it official. If we don’t have the aristocracy that so offended the founding fathers, we find ourselves with blacks exercising aristocratic privilege over whites. Equality before the law is an unworkable ideal, hypocritically betrayed in actual practice. Some people are going to be unjustly privileged. Let us try to make it the best people rather than the worst people, and try to make it the people that the state draws is wealth and coercive power from, rather than the people who sponge off the state.

Family

The immense biological and reproductive differences between men and women means that they can only cooperate for family formation on asymmetric, unequal terms. The wife has a duty to honor and obey, the husband to love and cherish. To ensure cooperation between men and women, the state, the family, society, and religion have to force men and women who sleep together to stick together, to force them to perform their marital duties, to force the man to cherish and the woman to obey, otherwise you get defect/defect, and reproduction and family become difficult for both men and woman.

For hypergamy to be eugenic rather than dysgenic, taxpayers and warriors need to have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted. For marriage to work, pimps, sluts, and whores need to have a substantially less protection against violence, insult, and rape. For marriage to be incentive compatible for women it has to be simply legal for a respectable man to chain a slut up in his basement, and if she does not want to risk that outcome, she needs to sign up in a nunnery or submit to husband. A right to protection should require chastity and/or submission to the authority of a husband or father. Sluts shall have legal authority equal to chaste women? What! This inevitably results in sluts being given legal status higher than that of chaste woman, and that is exactly what is happening. Wives, like whites, are very much second class low status citizens. We have an aristocracy, and black whores are at the top.

Women always wind up heading off the protection of the most alpha male around. If that is the protection of uncle Sam, you get what we have got.

You will notice that the doctrine that all women shall be equal required and led to the doctrine that all women are naturally chaste, enshrined in our current law on rape and sexual harassment, which presupposes that the primary person who is harmed by rape and sexual harassment is the woman, and the primary person who is going to object to it and be distressed by it is the woman, rather than the father, her biological kinfolk, and the husband. The transparent falsity and absurdity of this doctrine leads to the transparent falsity and absurdity of all rape and sexual harassment charges and convictions, as near to all of them as makes no difference. Legal equality necessitates and results in a denial of biological inequality.

Rape and sexual harassment laws that give women equal status to males are a problem, because in practice their resistance to rape and sexual harassment is a fitness test – they are pissed at you if you fail the test, not pissed by being successfully raped. So rape and sexual harassment charges based on the legal theory that these are crimes against the women herself, rather than her husband or family, always originate from failed shit tests – and the overwhelming majority of these failures do not involve rape and sexual harassment. What happens in the vast majority of cases, for all practical purposes all of them, is that a woman is sexually attracted to a man, hits him with a brutal and hard to pass shit test out of the blue, he fails, she feels creeped out, and comes to believe that something must have happened that legally justifies her feeling of being creeped out. In the rare and unusual occasions when they are based on an actual attempt at rape or sexual harassment, they are based not on the rape or the sexual harassment, but on the man failing her fitness test by retreating from her hostile response. They originate from male behavior that is not all that bad – just weak, the male trying something, but then retreating in the face of determined opposition.

We cannot give women the same legal right to protection against violence and insult as men, because they fail to cooperate in that protection. The best we can do is grant state backing for nunneries, husbands, and fathers protecting their wives and daughters, because husbands and fathers are are going to cooperate in that protection, and the male priests supervising the nunnery will cooperate in that protection. Violence and insult against women has to be handled as an offense against the male authority that cares for them, because if handled as an offense against the women themselves, the women are unhelpful, untruthful, deluded, and uncooperative, failing to report the kind of offenses that we want to suppress, and delusively reporting non offenses.

Men and women want families. Men and women want to cooperate to have families. But prisoners dilemma gets in the way. To fix the prisoner dilemma problem, need to hit women with a stick.

Property

Anti discrimination law violates people’s property rights. Google hates us, but the problem is not primarily too much capitalism, but too little. In the James Damore affair, Google’s Human Resources Department (the Human Resources department being a tentacle of the state inserted into every corporation) threatened the board and the management of Google with a lawsuit for not hating us enough, issuing an official opinion that thinking forbidden thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women”. Because stereotypes are usually true, private individuals and corporations should be free to make use of the information expressed by stereotyping. The trouble with libertarians and libertarianism is that they support every socialist intervention that is destroying our lives and our economy.

Family law and anti discrimination law violates the fourth amendment and the seventh, eighth, and final commandments

[...]

Technological advance and industrialization comes from Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor. We first see this archetype appear immediately after the restoration, when Charles the Second made it OK to use the corporate form to get rich. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand’s hero is not heroically on our side, contrary to what Ayn Rand promised. He unheroically endorses the official religion, knowing his property could be attacked if he does not. But we should keep in mind that this makes him merely the instrument of power, not power. When we are in charge he will support our official religion and scarcely notice the change in the slogans posted in the rec room, which formerly endorsed coveting what belonged to others and females adopting male clothing and roles, but will then condemn coveting and endorse males performing male roles and females performing female roles.

Rand’s superman is not on our side. But he is not on the progs side. He is his own side, and this makes him largely irrelevant for political power, which requires cohesion.

The state can facilitate science by being a customer and buying high tech stuff. Indeed, a great deal of advance has come from the state seeking means to hurt people and break their toys, but when the state tries to itself advance technology, it usually turns out badly: Nasa could not build rockets. Kidnapped Wernher von Braun. Asked him how to build rockets. Still could not build rockets.

Nasa puts Wernher von Braun in charge. Now it can build rockets. Puts a man on the moon.

Wernher von Braun retires. New types of rockets don’t work. Old types of rockets gradually stop working no matter how much government money is poured down the toilet.

Where did Nasa find Wernher von Braun?

Nazis kidnapped him from the German rocket club which they shut down.

Seems obvious that we would have wound up with a whole lot better rocket technology if the rocket club became, or spawned, a bunch of startups, one of them led by Wernher von Braun, and governments outsourced rockets. Which is what gave us the reusable booster that lands as a rocket should land.

Before Wernher von Braun, american government rockets did not work. After Wernher von Braun, government rockets gradually stopped working. And the rocket club, not the Nazis, and not NASA, found Wernher von Braun.

Radar and wartime electronics present a similar story. Harvard created a huge radar and counter radar program during the war – which led nowhere, as NASA’s rockets went nowhere after Wernher von Braun retired.

Personalityinkwell & ShadowTheEdgehog #sexist #psycho incels.co

(Personalityinkwell)

[SuicideFuel] The middle school orgy pill is one of the most brutal blackpills.

A roleta sexual dos adolescentes portugueses

using translate, this is the part I was able to get.

The sexual roulette of Portuguese teenagers

They consume pornography, have sex in the bathrooms of schools and nightclubs, meet for orgies washed down with alcohol and drugs.

"Sometimes we don't know who we're going to have sex with in that party - it's a surprise. In those parties we are with more than one person in the same night, normally only one at a time, unless we're doing the roulette game (in which they trade partners). These parties are only for the popular kids. The normal parties are for the virgins who do not smoke or drink, in these there is no sex."

Also, ever hear of "rainbow parties"?

The unsexy truth, the hookup culture | Lisa Bunnage | TEDxSFU

little girls are making boys penises rainbow, how cute :soy:

Lastly, girls who are 14 (and likely younger), are playing "The Sun", a game where they get a train ran on them by about 5 chads at once.

If you're a Chad, the way to "win" this game is to be the last dude to cum

NEW SEX GAME IN POLAND

In Ostróda, a small Polish town with 34,000 inhabitants located 200 km from Warsaw, and famous for its relaxing natural surroundings, the polemic is big. Five Polish girls around 14-15 years got pregnant after playing sex games with their schoolmates.

The controversy has originated after a game known as "star" or "sun" became popular among young Poles. In this sex game, girls lay on the floor in a circle with their heads together and eyes closed and boys copulate with them, taking turns. The winner is the boy who managed to finish the intercourse last.

IT fags will tell you these girls are "innocent", when they are attending orgies. IT will want to deny this, since they are incels themselves, but the proof is documented above in multiple sources.

as someone who is portuguese that google translation is accurate.brutal but it makes sense.top 10% nut on everything that is below a 7.Girls who are 7+ start acting stingy.

wait, so the stacylites and stacies act "stingy" towards chads?

Never had an orgy in my middle school years. It's over, isn't it?

tbh

@Ropemaxx remember when IT denied that kids in middle school have sex? :feelskek:

@ionlycopenow this stuff happens before college, I'm starting to wonder if it happened at my school. :feelshmm:

(ShadowTheEdgehog)

Portugal + Poland should be shelled for at least 3 years without pause. When it's all done we build two giant cathedrals on the burned ashes, cathedrals so big you can see them from space.

Katyusha Rockets - USSR

Jfl at the polish article trying to construe the situation against catholic puritans claiming that lack of sex educations does this. No you motherfuckers, those children don't need sex education, they need a beating bombing.

fixed.

In the Video you see Poland when I grab the power in 2030.

Activists Allege Russian Cluster Bombing in Syria

Weimar Republic levels of degeneracy yet again.

Bro, if I had a daughter and I got wind of this, I would wait for their next Meeting, bust in the room and detonate fucking Thermite Right on her exposed ass crack.

as someone who is portuguese that google translation is accurate.brutal but it makes sense.top 10% nut on everything that is below a 7.Girls who are 7+ start acting stingy.

Bro. Leave your Country ASAP. Word on the street says that Bomber Harris has risen from the dead and he's headed for Portugal.

image

im only 5ft8, maybe i can sneak there.

Maybe I can Sneak a tactical warhead in there.

image

image

@Ropemaxx remember when IT denied that kids in middle school have sex? :feelskek:

@ionlycopenow this stuff happens before college, I'm starting to wonder if it happened at my school. :feelshmm:

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

YOU JUST REMINDED ME I just to think it was weird in School how Kids would go to the bathroom, Girls and Boys after each other, you know? I had fantasies About sex in the bathroom but I thoguht that was just in my mind.

At some Point the School only let one or two People out at the same time.

I also just remembered that a Boy and a Girl got caught making out in an empty classroom.

HOLY FUCK IT WAS ALL REAL HOLY FUCK HOLY FUCK AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

image

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Ironic Hypocrisy in TwoXChromosomes right now

So over on TwoXChromosomes right now there's a post called "I was just catfished and it was kind of terrifying" posted by a transwoman. I commented before I realized. I'm not posting the link because I don't want them to get the notification and I really don't like brigading.

Anyway all the comments are like "OMG you poor thing, it's absolutely atrocious how men don't respect lesbian's boundaries and try to convince lesbians to have sex with them!"

Of course OP is a pre-op transwoman who previously posted "hey fellow women how can I make my voice cuter cause you all do that" and "does everyone want to be their favorite anime girl or is it just me?"

Reality is broken. This is peak. Seriously, how is this not an episode of South Park or the Twilight Zone?

(YahwehTheDevil)
That thread is fascinating:

"Here me out, I know you don't like dick but you haven't seen mine!" Fucking losers.

I’m a lesbian as well and have also been catfished by men, unfortunately multiple times. So many men just don’t take lesbianism seriously, and view it as a challenge.

You just don't appreciate the mystical power of dick! As if lesbians could actually be happy without dick, they're just deluding themselves! Then when you trick them into coming close you shove yours in their face and BOOM their delusion crumbles and they'll be desperate for your schlong.

I don't care if you are gay or straight that is not cool, who thinks anyone would want to start a relationship based on a lie?

I was supposed to meet “her” at the Walmart because it was near my house and in a public place.

If you don’t understand why a man catfishing a lesbian is creepy as fuck, you’re part of the problem

By misleading a lesbian and making that connection while in the guise of a woman, you pretty much out yourself as a creep and a liar. The connection was made via deceit

I'm of the opinion that, although adults should be allowed to get SRS and HRT, and that they shouldn't be discriminated against because of those things, people have a reasonable expectation for a man to have an actual, functioning penis, and for a woman to have an actual, functioning vagina. Genitals, while not a sufficient condition for attraction, are for most people a necessary condition, and to call yourself a woman when you don't have a vagina is deceptive.

I wonder if that thread would play differently if everyone know that OP was a pre-op trans.

(radfemanon)
It's almost like trans ideology is super duper homophobic.

(DifferentAirGC)
Off-topic, but I wonder if TIMs think the name of that subreddit is exclusionary and "TERFy"

(contecorsair)
There's a few xx subs like that, like xxketo for example, which I like/hope is for actual women and transmen, because biology matters, especially when specifically talking about something that effects your hormones and so many women, myself including, have absent or two week+ menstruation from keto or are using keto to help with diabetes and ovarian cysts. (And no transwomen are not "just like women with PCOS". Gag me.) There was this "I'm an XY women am I welcome?" Seriously, who other than trans ask if they are "welcome" on a sub? People are free to subscribe and post to any sub as long as it's relevant. Why ask? Even GC doesn't have a "no Transcribers" rule. They are just fishing for validation at our expense. Like, if I'm uncomfortable with it, like I am, what am I supposed to do? Say, "Actually, this sub is not for you, it's for people talking about the specifics of dealing with keto and how it changes the female body."? No. I'll be downvoted to hell and labeled transphobic. So they come seeking validation, I'm just asking an innocent honest question, no hate plz~ but we all know that there's only one allowed answer to the question or you get banned, downvoted, or threatened.

(lesbianisntabadword)
Go sort by “top of all time” on xxketo and you’ll find a post at the very top welcoming a TIM with open arms.

Many even suggest changing the name because xxketo is “exclusionary” and “chromosomes shromosomes”. And that was as of 74 days ago.

Many even had the audacity to say that women with PCOS could “relate to his androgen problems” so he should fit right in.

Uhh... seriously? I have PCOS and that does NOT make me relate more to a man, Tina. Get out.

So annoying!!

(SeverelyModerate)
I’m sorry .... WHAT?!!?! Are you fucking kidding me!? That’s enraging!!! Chromosomes DO matter when it comes to the expression of literally every gene in the body. Your risk of osteoporosis, certain cancers, certain diseases ... it doesn’t give a flying fart what the patient “identifies” as. I promise. And the PCOS thing has my head spinning like Beetlejuice. I can’t. It’s too stupid.

(lethalmachine)
I was just part of a thread where a TIF called me a dick. I said “I’m a cunt if you want to be technically correct” so he sent me a PM calling me a terf and all of those pleasantries. When I said “isn’t using genitals as an insult kind of terf-y?” He blocked me right after. The irony is ALWAYS lost on them.

(That90sCaliChick)
Oh trust me. There was a thread where a mother posted about her daughter being 18 and already being a cam girl. I suggested that there could be a chance she was groomed into it and I was dogpiled by these idiots who were pro sex industry!

That's so disturbing, you're probably right! I bet they were like oh no don't tell her to stop, give us her camera name

They didn’t ask for her camera name, but they were making the typical sex pozzer libfem arguments:

“But what if she knows other cam girls”

“You’re perpetuating the stigma.”

(Candentia)
I'm hoping if nothing else that seeing the dogpile on you would convince the mother to refrain from taking pro-porn arguments to heart. If she legitimately cares about what may be happening it's better that her daughter could have someone to talk to about it instead of being left to handle it alone...or worse, with no one but other sex-positive individuals (far more likely to find around her age today) who will offer nothing but encouragement for doing it.

(artificialgraymatter)
The guy in that thread that says lesbians and women should give him a chance as a platonic friend....

Women always owe men something.

*Edit: And I haven’t even gotten to the incel yet.

(Hooksandfangs)
Remind me why we’re not supposed to say these men are utterly revolting, again?

(Burbseverywhere)

LOL. This guy thinks that this other guy has anything in common with his lesbian mother.

I’m glad you’re safe...I should mention that I am a straight married male, but I grew up with a gay mother and I couldn’t imagine someone trying this to her, if you need any help trying to figure out witch VPN to go with I have a few in mind that should help you on all platforms, just let me know if you need any help

I love how these men white knight for trans but when a woman is harrassed it is her fault.

Silly womens acting so sensitive. /s

sp8der #transphobia reddit.com

Gay men are not attracted to transgendered woman (MTF) because they are not attracted to the physical appearance of a woman.

it's actually just the bit between the legs that makes me convulse, the entire rest of the woman is fine
i mean i like pretty feminine guys, and absolutely could not be less attracted to bears or bodybuilders, please explain
if you're interested in railing or being railed by Buck Angel, you're probably a gay guy

I have to push back on this because I cannot believe this is even remotely true. Almost every gay guy I know (and, being one myself, that's a fair few) is intensely repulsed by the mere concept of vagina and would go for Bailey Jay instead in a heartbeat. Bottoms especially would gain nothing from Buck Angel.

Sexual attraction really is sexual attraction in my experience.

Indeed. Myself and a bunch of my gay friends -- and even some of the straights -- have all shared the opinion that if we were to be raised today instead of X years ago, we would probably have been funneled down the trans pipeline.

EvolaDidNothingWrong #conspiracy #wingnut reddit.com

The "space race" is communist propaganda.

The Soviets never went to space. Not only is there no evidence to suggest they did, but the very idea is so ludicrous that even a small child could tell that it's false. First of all, the idea that an allegedly "semifeudal" or "preindustrial" society could advance into one capable of spaceflight in only a few years is so obviously absurd and false that it doesn't even merit a refutation. It simply defies all common sense. Second, there is no record of any real technological progress happening after the coup of 1917. Socialism, being easily the most inefficient system ever devised, would have made technological advancement FAR WORSE, if not nonexistent, than when it was under the supposedly "semifeudal" regime, for the simple reason that socialism destroys all scientific progress: see Lysenko for just one example. Third, given how horribly collectivization destroyed agriculture and livestock and the nonexistent priority the Soviets would continue to place on them, there is no way that anybody would be in any shape to successfully complete so much as one space mission, let alone several of them! The supposed "scientists" (if any either existed or were still alive) would be far, far too malnourished to get started on one. The logical conclusion therefore is that the so-called "space race" is nothing but socialist propaganda. The Cultural Marxists, realizing how miserably their dumbass system failed, made up this bullshit story in order to attract gullible morons to their genocidal ideology about how the Russians successfully traveled to space not once but multiple times.

The simple fact of the matter however is that the communists NEVER even got close to space; all of the achievements in spaceflight, without exception, were achieved by capitalists. Try showing me so much as ONE example that communists made any achievements in spaceflight. I won't hold my breath though; you're never going to find it. Ever. But it must not have been REAL socialism right???

Literally everyone, all Governments, official bodies, observers disagree with you.

No they don't.

Ah yes, I remember when the technologically inept peasantry of the Soviet Union pushed back the Nazi war machine with pitchforks and rocks.

1. There was never a "Nazi war machine" and 2 ) nobody ever invaded the Soviet Union. All of the damage that happened in 1941 to 1945 was caused by communism but of course the dumbass socialists blamed everything but their retarded ideology for it.

And when they dominated the foreign policy of the USA because they were so scared of being infiltrated by those crafty yet illiterate peasants.

This literally never happened.

Even your Capitalists agree the Soviets were first to space, and not only that, they wanted to use Soviet space technology in joint space missions. Or maybe those pesky cultural Marxist peasants took over NASA to spread Socialist lies.

No, but they can still fall for them. You're one example.

Are you saying that they over represent the importance of their space program, or that it never happened and and was invented for propaganda?

Yes. The "space race" never happened. Literally every single "achievement" the Reds made was faked.

Wow that is insane.

Oh but believing that socialism works is perfectly logical? FUCKING LOL

some incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: Millionaire betabux cucked for 20+ years into raising his roastie's 3 boys. The revalation was made when he found out that he was infertile since birth due to a genetic condition.

(BenchoteMankoManko)

He raised them for over 20 years, to damn with genetics he's still their father. Why can't he do the adult thing and repair his relationship with the boys, why does he care so much about his genes, his name is being passed on anyway.

Can't he settle the matter quietly instead of dragging his children's names into the mud with him .

no, he's the guy that was tricked by a whore into babysitting and paying for all their shit

(KrakaLakak)

to damn with genetics he's still their father.

IT cucks in a nutshell.

(enjoy_life88)
just swallow the fact that you invested decades of your existence and resources in offspring that are not your own, bro.

(femcelslol)
Just be a literal cuck bro

(Idk12344482305)
That’s what you want, right? To never be held accountable. Well fuck you, he can do it, and he should do it. Thots like the whore these kids call mother need to be shamed publicly.

She should be held accountable for the deception... but he is just as descpicable wtf is he doing? Basically saying unless they came from my sperm, my "name" won't live on. Lmao what an arrogant prick what about all the other men who are infertile or gay couples who can't have their own children naturally

He raised them thinking they were his, but they’re not. They don’t contain his genetic material, so they’re not his kids. Every organism wants to spread their genes, that is the purpose of life. It’s selfish, yes. But so are all of us.

We aren't animals, we not to be more evolved.

Of course sweetheart, you’re special <3

(Salusa-Secundus)
Easy for the mother to say, maybe.

He got fucked over.

Bet the real dad is pissing himself laughing over all this.

Or sitting in fear wondering when his children/ex-lover are gonna knock on the door asking for money. Or if the scumbag is married wondering how this news may affect his family. Men need to learn to keep in their pants.

The men who can't keep it in their pants are also the ones getting laid.

It must be because they respect women and watch films with strong female protagonists.

Franco A. #racist spiegel.de

A suspected right-wing extremist German army officer is thought to have been planning an attack. As part of his preparation, he registered as a refugee from Syria. Now, Franco A. has been arrested in a perplexing case full of riddles.

By Jörg Diehl and Matthias Gebauer

In photos, Franco A. looks rather unremarkable. In one image, the dark-haired first lieutenant in gray uniform even has a slightly mischievous look on his face. Next to him in the picture, which was taken in the French town of Illkirch, stands a class of schoolchildren. The Bundeswehr soldier is stationed there with a German-French brigade.

For investigators, the young man with parted hair and glasses represents both a puzzling and extremely dangerous case. On Wednesday morning, Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) arrested him in the Bavarian town of Hammelburg. Concurrently, his quarters in France, his car and the apartment of his suspected accomplice in Offenbach were searched. The suspected accomplice, Mathias F., was also detained.

Prosecutors in Frankfurt have been investigating Franco A. since February 17 on suspicions he was planning a significant act of violence. It is thought that A., who was taking part in a hand-to-hand combat training course, may have been planning an attack in Germany.

The scenario laid out by investigators is alarming: Despite his rather ordinary appearance, Franco A. is suspected of being a staunch right-wing extremist, full of hate for foreigners and prone to violence. Furthermore, at the end of 2015, he established a secret identity as a Syrian refugee. One of the theories investigators are pursuing is that Franco A. had hoped to implicate refugees in the act of violence he was planning.

The story began at the end of January. A technician performing maintenance work at Vienna International Airport found a loaded 7.65 caliber pistol in a restroom duct and informed police. After examining the weapon, the officers decided to outfit the duct with an alarm so as to identify the person who came to retrieve the weapon from its hiding place.

A Strange Double Life

The plan bore fruit on February 3 when Franco A. opened the duct and he was taken into temporary custody. Franco A. told police that he had found the weapon in a bush at the location of the January 20 officers' ball in Vienna. At the airport, he says, he suddenly realized that he wouldn't be able to take the pistol through security, which is why he hid it in the restroom.

Investigations undertaken following the discovery of the weapon revealed the soldier's strange double life, but they also cast light on the chaos that reigned at the height of the refugee crisis. The Austrians passed along Franco A.'s finger prints to the BKA, and before long the Germans found a match. But the match, oddly, was with a Syrian asylum-seeker.

At the end of 2015, Franco A. had adopted the alias David Benjamin and, in Bavaria, claimed to be a refugee. Although he speaks no Arabic and only broken French, he was registered -- as the Christian son of a fruit trader from Damascus. He said he had been born in 1988.

The files make clear the lengths Franco A. went to in developing his identity as a Syrian refugee. Shortly after he was registered, he applied for asylum and was granted just over 400 euros per month in benefits. He was even assigned a room at a group hostel. At the same time, he reported punctually for his military service -- and nobody noticed that anything was awry.

The BKA, though, received an additional interesting clue from Vienna: Investigators say that Austrian officials found files in Franco A.'s possession that clearly point to his right-wing extremist proclivities. That detail was enough to get prosecutors in Frankfurt involved. On Feb. 17, they opened an official investigation on suspicions that he was preparing a violent attack.

Intense Surveillance

Nobody believed his story about accidentally finding the weapon and, in the weeks that followed, the soldier was put under intense surveillance. Telephone surveillance revealed that Franco A. was a staunch xenophobe: Investigators say that he exchanged virulently bigoted texts with other right-wing extremists on WhatsApp and heatedly ridiculed foreigners.

These exchanges led investigators to suspected accomplice Mathias F., who is likely an old friend of Franco A.'s from Offenbach. The two communicated often. A soldier in the army reserve in Vienna, who investigators had thought of as a witness until that point, was also part of the chat group. The homes of several chat group members were searched on Wednesday. Investigators ultimately reached the conclusion that the young men may have been doing more than just venting their hatred of foreigners. They could have been planning an attack.

Still, the BKA asked the Bundeswehr, as the German military is called, to allow Franco A. to continue serving so that they could surreptitiously monitor him. But the officer behaved unobtrusively. He only told a few of his comrades about the pistol found in Vienna and that it was becoming a problem for him.

Only months later did Franco A. again hear from the authorities: On April 19, members of MAD, Germany's military intelligence agency, interviewed him. But A. chose his answers carefully, according to investigators, hiding his right-wing extremist views and repeating his story of how he found the firearm in Vienna.

Investigators still have to find out what exactly Franco A. was planning. Thus far he has remained silent. In their search of Mathias F.'s home in Offenbach, officials say they found ammunition, hand grenades and a small quantity of explosives. But it is still unclear what role he played. He says that Franco A. gave him the weapon that he had found and that he didn't think anything of it.

Perplexing Elements

Prosecutors have been reticent about providing concrete details and a spokeswoman said on Thursday that investigators have found no clearly developed plans for an attack, though she added that the case includes a number of perplexing elements. Franco A.'s conspiratorial behavior has no doubt fueled suspicions that he has something to hide.

The German military must now provide an explanation for how the first lieutenant's right-wing convictions could have gone undiscovered for so long. And how Franco A. was able to conceal for more than a year that he regularly traveled to Bavaria to maintain his fake refugee identity.

Fears that a Bundeswehr soldier could commit an attack are not new. Thus far, though, the concern had been that an Islamist might infiltrate the military and then use his new skills in an act of terrorist violence. Indeed, this summer MAD will be introducing a new security check for all incoming recruits in the hopes of closing potential security holes.

Whether such a check might have weeded out Franco A. is doubtful.

mopusvindictus #fundie abovetopsecret.com

1 Reason...

Male homosexuality leads to a disgusting deplorable society in time and women are instinctually aware of that, Female homosexuality leads to... nothing particularly tragic for everyone else.


Before you all bash my brains in just listen and really think about it.

A: Disease

Women barely ever spread STD's to each other... it's that damn garden hose of our spewing stuff all over...

okay, the only thing that keeps Men in check from a constant desire to
Mate is the sanity of women and their avoidance of the topic... (being particular about who they shag)

Left alone Men screw constantly and with far more partners

NOT ALL

But go to a gay nightclub... combine Meth or even Booze with a male sex drive unrestrained it gets Raunchy... some guys keep Hundreds of partners... That's a recipe for Disease

If your wife has sex with a woman are you at risk... no, but your husband gets buggered by a man... are you at risk... hell Yeah you are...of DEATH

Not a turn on

Then there's ANAL... your going to draw Blood in small amounts every time 2 men do it...

Not good to avoid disease

Women tend to be clean and care for themselves more... the risks of Male gay behavior...disease, many partners, involving the Poop Hole... just not a turn on for women, risk, huge risks

Before you bash me...

I was going to the Empire State building with my class when I was 8

There I saw my First Homosexual Male...1978, Gay Orgy Club time pre Aids...

Man wore a shirt on line that said:

"500 Man Fisting party"

Okay NOT HOT to a Chick... guy took 500 fists up his rear end...

That is men left alone with unrestrained sex... NOT GOOD

B: Sexual Reality

Men... despite all bravado and desire... limited sex drive built in chemical process to make us pass out

Women need... more sex, men we burn out

Your man having a Man in his life means... exhaustion, you get nada from either guy, less not more

A woman...when they wear a Guy out... keep going together, it's good sex for HER

Unless 2 guys were focused on her, not each other, she's going to end up with 2 passed out chumps instead of one

Remember... guys sexual peak is 20 Women 35

By the time your that age... man have to work at it to keep up, especially if she has had a couple of babies, giving her the orgasm flow when she is peaked out at my age is not as easy as it is when a girl is 19 and it's all new and your at no 1 position...

There is no viable sex life for a guy exhausting himself with men...

so women are

at risk

and have nothing to gain sexually

So they don't like to think of their guys going Gay


Even more

Gay Men can get sex when ever they want just like women... The world exists on Men doing WORK to impress Women...

Men start Gaying out like Women can just play... they don't need Women so much do they?

Nor do they need to advance much from, waiting tables or painting...

Not much a Womans agenda to take risks with men leaving their position of Financial Bondage is there?

Lets also add cleanliness

Some women might find the thought or image of one Man dominating another Hot

But when 2 women have se it ends in a hot sexy orgasm

2 Men... the ending can be...urrr Grotesque

Not to be graphic but when the last sight you see when your husband or lover cums with a man... might be an explosive organic Enema of a result on your bed sheets

It probably goes from Hot to Not in an instant for most women...

Things like crying in pain from rectal taring, or a giant scat moment just... isn't the same as a beautiful woman orgasming in the Clean and non Bed sheet ruining manner they do...


Lets just bring it back to "The 500 Man Fisting party Guy"

Man..can be damn disgusting... period, it's almost a favor to us that women sleep with some of us at all... Gay sex isn't Hot to Women Mostly
Worst you get from Lesbianism is a Lady with a pack of Marlboro's and a Flannel

Gay guys bring us Drag Queens and Parades and Orgies and ...yeah Diseases and non productivity and allot of social ills

A woman is just at Extreme risk if her Man is Bi on allot of levels...

The same just doesn't apply in the opposite direction... it's FAR from a double standard, there are real reasons one is hot to one sex but not the other

Administrative_Worth & jeremyjimmy #sexist reddit.com

Re: FTM blackpill

image

(Administrative_Worth)
A small selection of men have it very well made. The rest wallow in a sea of desperation. As many writers and philosphers have remarked.

I wouldn't be surprised if she ropes soon. Trannies have a high sucide rate afterall, because most of them don't pass as the gender they wish to be.

Women turning into men look a lot better than the opposite. It's pretty damn hard to undo the effects of testosterone and increased human growth hormone. Hell a lot of females turning into males get ripped fast, because they are basically on IFBB pro steroids, medicial grade ones with endocronilogists there to make sure it all goes well.

Men turning into women. God help me. Not to mention the disproprortionate amount of male to female transgenders, (another sing it's being over diagnosed)Sadly a lto of those male to females are fellow brocels, at the very least mentalcels who got sucked and udped into the alluring tranny trap, that all the negatives and bad feeligns they experience, isn't your fault. It's that you were born in the wrong body. Now wear this tape over your occk and balls permenantly damaging them, and start a diet of phytoestrogens Before we find you a "sympathetic" psychiatrist who will give you a diagnosis and we can start chopping bits off and pumping you with hormones.

This is why there are way more MTF trannies than FTM ones. Most foids would never want to experience the hardships of a man while many men want to experience the much easier life of a woman.

Sadly true. So many copers, especially mentalcels falling in the tranny trap.

Legit transgenders do exist. They are so rare though. Hardly existing on the scale we're seeing mentally ill, often vulnerable lonely, damaged by trauma or bullying, people being pumped full of hormones and having cocks lopped off today. Damn fucking sad

This is like changing the difficulty level of a game from Easy to a Legend.

SUddenly I'm a creep unless I say the exact right words with the right body language and keeping the right diatance from everyone else. And there are always other fellow "bros" pushing me around, excluding me fro conversations with their shoulders. I thought we were all bros in this club, wtf. Being born a male is struggle from womb to tomb. It's why so many kill themselves, or check out as rannies, or mgtow, or run off to hippie communes of "free love" where it's their partner just fucking hippie chads and they get to stop worrying and competing and get fed, and live basically.

The struggle and will is all.

(jeremyjimmy)

The foid is starting to realize that she gave up her privilege just to become a manlet. JFL at her stupidity.

You'd think they would've realized this a lot earlier? If I was transitioning I'd be THOROUGHLY researching shit women go through and putting myself mentally in their place day to... oh wait I'm a guy, I already do that naturally without thinking, it's called empathy.

That's how this place predicted the blackpill and can predict posts like this, because we have empathy and a generally objective understanding of how people and the world works.

Apex fallacy

Exactly. A LOT of women have it made vs how many men have it made. Men have it made by having the luck of being born good looking, born with enough drive to work hard enough to make a nice amount of money and / or be born into money.

wtf is fun about larping as a man? Took t shots too, dry bagina here we come

There were 3 articles about exactly this a few months ago. All female to male, all saying life has become a cold, lonely nightmare compared to the friendly, safe world they lived in as a woman. They now say they feel invisible and like if they mess up they're on their own.

Yeah, no shit. Welcome to being a man. Did they think we were lying about this stuff?

I've heard this a million times from female to male. Another complaint is that "they suddenly feel alone in the world like if something goes wrong nobody will help" they ALSO all tend to say something along the lines of "before transitioning I didn't really think about men's issues or what they go through or care about them but now I realize life is a lot harder for them."

They basically admit everything. Funny because when I was told about women's issues I felt empathy for them and I would alter my behavior to make their lives a little easier. Meanwhile they didn't even consider men human.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: On how the only aspects of "womanhood" that are valued are the ones males can buy into

image

(lacubana)
Yesssss thissssss

Wanna know when I felt most “like a woman”? I can tell you I sure wasn’t wearing makeup or heels or having a pillow fight. I wasn’t delicate in the slightest.

It was when I was pushing another human I had made out of my body. Oh yeah that.

(earthgarden)
and if you're not pushing a human out, or in the process of growing a human, you get a monthly reminder by your body (for at least 4 f!cking decades of your life!) that it had to tear down the nest it built just in case you set one to growing. I swear to god!! If men could experience a period ONCE they would leave us TF alone! That would be an end to the oppression because their pity would know no bounds, they'd experience massive shame at the treatment men have inflicted upon female humanity these long millennia. because then they'd realize nature already oppresses us just fine, thank you very much

(LadyCeer)
My dad used to be really sweet about it and let me sleep a lot and he fed me eggs and ibuprofen and was just very kind when I was being shot down by my period. He also used to talk to women in the form of long, friendly, non-sexual conversations....But then, he never tried to become a woman. Maybe that's a connection.

(shortstroll)
I don't know about your theory but I think it's one of two options.

The first is that some of them are just gay men who in their formative years internalised gender roles. So since they like clothes, have a crush on a dude and their penis isnt a major erogenous zones they think they are girls. It's also sub conscious sexual strategy. There's a greater selection of partners for them if they can fake being a woman. In fact you now see them pushing the idea that genuine heterosexual males would knowingly copulate with a tim.

The second is that some of them are straight men who just have a weird fetishism of womanhood. They don't just want to have sex with women, they want to be them. This isn't dissimilar from the cannibals who get sexual gratification from eating their sexual partners. Bruce Jenner is the perfect example of this. He slowly turned himself into a male version of his wife and the closer he got to his goal the greater his resentment of her grew. Once he had completed his transition, he didn't just discard her, he tried to destroy her in the media. I'm convinced that in a different world, he would have murdered her. That would have been his version of a perfect conclusion.

(TerribleConfusion)
I saw Graham Linehan retweeted a man suggesting something similar. It’s hard to empathise with this, as a woman, but it seemed to make sense to him and the other guy. And I suppose when you think about it, a lot of men do get INCREDIBLY uncomfortable when discussing ways in which men oppress women. Even decent guys don’t want to think about it. So I can kind of imagine how that discomfort might feed in to autogynephilia. Maybe when you feel like your desire is oppressive you want to be the object of desire instead of the subject.

It’s very hard to reconcile this with how misogynistic many TIMs are, though. But I suppose maybe they feel like they’re allowed to hate and bully women because they’re “women” too, and they’re more special and oppressed than any other kind of woman blah blah etc. And maybe it’s the most misogynistic and shitty of men who are most uncomfortable with themselves deep down so they transition to escape their own shittiness. Spoiler: they don’t escape it, they just found a different method than other misogynists to project their shittiness on to (actual) women.

(witchy_xx)
actually this is the exact reason given when my ex came out as trans. he wanted to escape the role of oppressor. what a load of shit.

it's also an easy power grab. for example that asshat Hailey Heartless was a no one politically before and now everyone knows his name.

(griffxx)
We have seen TIMs along with their Handmaidens, trying to dislocate all things female, from the definition of of woman, womanhood and female. I'm truly fascinated, in a psychologically clinical way, the TIMs asserting that they have Bloodless Periods. This a whole other level of Delusion.

Why on Earth did these Feminized White Men, think they could dictate WOMEN diminished our Womanhood, for their OBSESSIVE NARCISSISTIC NEED FOR THE VALIDATION OF THEIR GENDER IDENTITIES!!!!!

The minute these Prostate Havers and their Handmaidens said point blank that, "FEMALE BIOLOGY AND THE EXPERIENCES OF LIVING IN THE BODY, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMANHOOD" this Misogynistic, Homophobic and Racist Movement should have been REELED/REALED in to what it was supposed to be:

Lobbying and advocating for laws that reassert Civil Rights protections against various forms of discrimination.

They have framed as "A FIGHT FOR THEIR EXISTENCE" this is categorically A LIE.

And to make the claim there are plenty of Lesbians that will date and fuck them; Bisexual leaning women more like. If this were true the Cotton Ceiling War Against Lesbian Sexuality would have ended 5 years ago. Instead it's still continues, and we are at 7.5 year mark.

We need to build on the momentum, we currently have. We need to explain to the Civilian class of women--> not part of the Feminist or LGBTQ Communities, how White TIMs are engaged in the process of erasing their sex-based protections, in the name of attaining their Civil Rights

(scienceisarealthing)

I have no way of knowing whether most pass or not. I’ve never seen a study. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

I've seen a lot of trans-identified males in real life as well as in photo & it's very rare for them to pass. The few who do pass visually are clockable as male as soon as you hear their voice, see their body shape, or see how large their bone structure is when they are next to a female person. This is not meant as an "insult" btw, bc there's nothing wrong with being a feminine male (as long as they arent sexist, etc...)

Transmisogyny is intrinsically illogical bc either the trans-ID'd male passes as female (and experiences some forms of misogyny) or he is clocked as male & faces homophobia/ transphobia/ whatever you wanna call hatred/ disgust against gnc males. It's the reason why drunk guys will sometimes hit on a trans-ID'd male, then the moment they find out he's actually male will scream things like "Fggot! Trnny!!" and sometimes resort to physical violence. That is NOT an example of misogyny bc it wouldn't happen to a female.

How would you know you saw a trans person if they did pass though?

I've never seen a trans-ID'd male who passes in real life, only in photos. There's just no getting around the differences in bone structure, voice, and movements between males and females when you observe people in real life. As someone who is involved in the natural sciences & figure drawing, it is easy to determine someone's natal sex & tell if they are trans or not.

edit: I mean, even when you look at the transpassing sub, few pass even in photo. It does a disservice to trans people to lie to them by telling them they pass when they don't. I see women and other trans people do this all the time & it makes me cringe, because it's so obviously.. not true. In fact, it comes across as cruel to lie to someone like that. It should be ok for people to look/ dress however they want without striving for the unattainable goal of passing completely as the opposite sex.

If a trans woman passes as female, what forms of misogyny would they not face? Honest question. Is it just from medical professionals who would know about someone’s private health details? If they pass, then why would it come up in conversation?

Side question, why does it matter if someone is facing violence due to misogyny or transphobia? Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences under the same system?

It is impossible to say definitively whether or not most trans women can pass based on one person’s interaction with the public. You can definitely say that you’ve seen some trans people not passing. Why would anyone reveal their medical history to a stranger?

Jesus christ, seriously? They wouldn't face:

-limited birth control access, abortion access, reproductive rights battles

-the pain of pregnancy/ discrimination against pregnant women

-dying in childbirth

-the fear of becoming pregnant

-menstrual pain/ stigma/ menstrual huts

-female genital mutilation

-femicide/ sex selective abortion

-medical stigma against female health concerns like PCOS, uterine cysts, endometriosis, severe PMS, menopause, etc... (the list goes on & on)

-sex trafficking & rape (most men want to rape females, not trans-ID'd males)

-being sold as a child bride

-limited access to education bc of being female

-breast ironing

-bride burning

-foot binding (though this only happened to females in the past, as far as i know)

I'm leaving off so much more I can't think of right now. Trans men, nonbinary females, women.. we all face these issues based on what part of the world we live in. It matters whether someone faces misogyny vs. homophobia/ transphobia because those are different forms of oppression! By your same logic, we could include men who face racism under the branch of feminism because (as you said) "Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences?"

FEMinism is the only political movement that is exclusively for FEMales. It's horrible that other people face different forms of oppression, but they can form their own movements to address their needs. Black women & black men both face racism but ONLY black women are welcome in feminism. Poor men & poor women are both economically oppressed, but ONLY the poor woman is welcome in feminism. A woman & a passing trans-ID'd male may both be catcalled, but ONLY the woman is welcome in feminism.

Trans-ID'd males are welcome to (and in fact, already have) formed their own political movements against the unique problems they face. It is narcissistic and unreasonable to demand that women dismantle the ONLY political movement that we have to ourselves. Can female people seriously have nothing to ourselves?Do we have to give in to every group who wants "in"? We can be allies with each other to overcome some similar problems we may face (if any), but we are not the same, and that distinction in lived reality matters.

Isn’t feminism for anyone who believes in the social, economic, and political equality of women? Everyone is welcome. That is a great point about not including everyone who is oppressed ever, but the type of oppression we are talking about is targeted at people who present as female. What I find disturbing by your response is that you aren’t inclusive. Why do you need to say that someone is not welcome if they are experiencing something as common as cat calling or workplace harassment? Would it be so bad if a trans woman was in your circle? Would you not feel safe? I don’t understand what benefit there is to being so specific in membership? It seems to me that it would be best to differentiate by who is suffering a type of discrimination. For example, a trans woman might be subject to being talked down to in public (there is a great TEDtalk by a trans woman who knows what it is like to walk around in society as an adult male and an adult female. She passes btw). A trans male might have not had access to birth control prior to transitioning. I would think both types of people would be welcome.

Feminism is Liberation of females from male oppression. We are already equal, stating that is redundant and offensive.

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Where Does Organized Male Evil Come From?

I just got finished reading this article about the rapes of Rohingya women and the persecution and slaughter of their people: http://www.thejournal.ie/rohingya-rape-3745266-Dec2017/

I know it's not uplifting to read this stuff, but it's also important not to turn away.

I want to know what causes such organized male evil. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispute over territory or religion or ethnicity, it is men who do this in an organized fashion. It has always been men.

Is it as simple as "patriarchy?" Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch describes the creation of capitalist evil through the weaponization of men and male sexuality, the formal institution of patriarchy, the enslavement of women, and the colonial/imperial ventures of the new world order.

Although it's true almost no corner of the human world has gone untouched by the Western project of colonialism and imperialism, other cultures have their own ancient histories of warfare, bloodshed and male rule that predate Western history.

I know the advent of agriculture and the dawn of land ownership have been cited as the reason for growing institutionalization of patriarchy and subjugation of women and expansion of territory--but really--I struggle to understand how men can commit such horrific atrocities in an organized fashion. If women ruled the world, would we do this? Would we?

I have never given much credence to notions of biological determinism and I still don't; if men are like this by dint of nature as well as nurture the power of human socialization can change them. So far is has mainly been used to cement these violent, hierarchical tendencies it seems.

I just never used to believe there could be this fundamental difference between men and women where under the right circumstances men could join together to commit such atrocities in a way that women wouldn't. Is it because women have been stripped of their power that we don't see them band together to exercise it in such horrific fashion? Or is there really a fundamental, biological difference between us that makes men more susceptible to committing violence?

I also struggle with the connection between sex and committing violence so often seen within cultures and among mostly male individuals across the world. Is it male or is it masculine?

(anxietyaccount8)
No it's not just as simple as patriarchy. I once believed that but now I don't. Men really are just more violent than women. Male sexuality is also very different than female sexuality (in general) and I don't think anybody could have socialized me into being interested in some of the crazy things they are interested in.

I think that the reason a lot of people dismiss these claims is because they are reminded of evolutionary psychology, which for the most part is not very scientific at all. But the thing is that just because things like "women are naturally better at cooking" are BS it doesn't mean that everything that sounds like evopsych is wrong. For example we know that male and female animals act differently. We know that males and females have different body types, hormone levels, and different ways of reproducing. Would it really be so insane to suggest there are mental differences too?

Now to be fair, I am not really sure if this is true, and none of us will be sure unless we have substantial evidence, but this is my personal theory. It just feels really obvious to me.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
This was my point to another poster. To what extent can the behavior of other mammals, including our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) be interpreted to reflect on our own?

Not only the male correlation of sex and violence but specifically the far greater incidence of male sexual fetishes (about the same as the disproportionate ratio of male vs. female violence, 10 to 1) causes me to believe there's something more than socialization going on here. Scientists who study human sexuality say it has to do with a more intense focus from males as a group on sexuality in general, heightening fetishes. But how often do you hear of women who like to pretend to be baby boys and wear diapers? (Seriously?) And like to be burped and breastfed and rocked to sleep? (I would really like formal studies of how often these bizarre fetishes occur in males as compared to females. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a result of porn and therefore male domination arising from social reasons because how much of porn is men pretending to be infant girls and breastfeed? Please don't tell me).

I am not saying this to be in favor of gender or against it. "Gender" as we know it is a social construct. Any innate evolutionary differences in the sexes--say, of violent vs. pacifist, or systematizing (from, say, hunting more often than women in most prehistoric societies) vs. integration (from the greater social relations of gathering and building)--need not be our fate if detrimental. We are highly social animals almost entirely at the whim of our socialization, which has been civilizing in some respects but in others greatly lacking.

I agree that just because evolutionary psychology has become a crutch of sexist males it does not mean absolutely none of it is true. It's more important than ever we separate the wheat from the chaff.

(anxietyaccount8)
Right, and it's important that people recognize radical feminism's criticism of gender actually does not contradict this existence of innate differences. We are all born into a society where we have to follow prescribed gender roles, and this social construct bleeds into all aspects of our lives and causes differences of its own. If some differences are innate this social construction makes them much more prominent and worse.

Also it doesn't mean that there is a distinct male or female brain, or that trans people really do have the brain of the opposite sex. Even if, hypothetically, a trans woman did actually act in ways that women are biologically supposed to, they are just proving that there is variation and a male can be that way too.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
Lol at the downvotes. I also don't understand how butthurt men get about this subject. It is quite clearly true (unless you prefer "violence" to "evil" because you don't believe in imposing moral values on human actions), and I am merely asking why and where it comes from.

Humanity will never change until men reckon with their own and their fellow men's actions.

(bigoltreehugger)
Ew. So many men came in caping for other men in response. I miss the days when this sub didn't have as many dudes hanging around. I'm sorry I can't engage your question properly but I just wanted to say that I've always appreciated your input on this sub.

(descending_wisdom)
fundamental biological differences. Sexual selection theory easily explains male violence. Watch some videos on organized warfare in some troops of chimpanzees.

(sunscreenonface)
Gonna leave this write up from notcisjustwoman here:

"Patriarchy pre-dates both the agricultural revolution and hunter-gatherer societies, because the basis of the oppression of women, indeed the very basis for oppression itself, is rape.

Male animals have been raping female animals since before the first humans, or even the first primates, appeared on earth. Events like the agricultural revolution codified male oppression of women into a more organized system, and religion has evolved over time to become an enforcer and moralizer of male violence, but neither of things things created patriarchy. Patriarchy began the first time a man raped a woman, and instead of being beaten to death by her tribal/family group, he was rewarded with fathership of her children.

It’s not comfortable even for most radical feminists to see this full and complete scope of the history of patriarchy, because it means that things are much more complicated than mere socialization, but it is a brutal truth we must confront in our analysis."

To expand upon this, here's a previous write up I did once I'd read notcisjustwoman's blog:

"I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I've recently been thinking a lot about the various species of animals across this earth that have been known to rape...and it turns out most animal species have some form of rape. Ducks, squirrels, dolphins, dogs, gorillas, etc. all have observable males who rape and aggress females.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that aggressive males who rape will pass on their aggressive traits to their offspring that are conceived via rape. I don't think it's a stretch to say that male homo sapiens might be more likely to aggress and rape females since they inherited a tendancy towards violence from their male ancestors who were conceived via rape. (Reminder: I could be completely wrong about this!)

Does this make rape ok? NO!!!! Even if rape and aggressive sexual behavior is 'natural', 'natural' does not instantly equal something good or beneficial for a species. Homo sapiens dying of tooth decay at 22 is quite natural, but it's horrific and traumatizing for everyone involved.

All I'm saying is my understanding of men's GLOBAL and CONSTANT violence toward women became easier to understand once I started to think about sexual violence as an issue often found in primate species and not as something completely 100% culturally-bound.

Here's a link to a tumblr write-up that spawned my thoughts on this: http://notcisjustwoman.tumblr.com/post/175761393959/what-is-good-for-the-gander-is-not-always-good-for#notes

(Unabashed_Calabash)
I've read about the extremely complex history of rape among animals of all kinds (they have highly evolved methods of rape--an actual sexual arms race between males and females, as females also evolved to try to avoid rape--in fact, some believe the reason we walk upright is because women first stood up to avoid greater vulnerability to gang rape from behind, and that these gang rapes were so violent many of the females of our prehistoric ancestors who did not stand up did not survive). The species in which pair-bonding and good fatherhood are the norm are not the norm.

There's a reason that male sperm in all species is a complex chemical cocktail. In humans it's designed to lull/drug the mate and bond females to males even at their own expense.

My gut feeling and experiences tell me notjustciswoman is right.

There's a reason rape as committed by men is so normalized and also so easy for men to commit. Behavioral scientists have discussed the not-so-mythical "rape switch" and posited that all or most men have one.

Reading stories of men's mass raiding/raping parties, I'm inclined to agree. (My own experience aligns with this as well. I have actually witnessed a man struggle with his own desire to rape when confronted with a woman highly vulnerable to it. He had a low "rape threshold" certainly, but I don't actually think it's all that unusual. I think human men--because human beings can feel remorse and regret--may struggle with what they have done or the harm they have caused, if society or the victim force them to reflect on this, but they still did it and wanted to do it anyway). Neither the normalization of rape nor its prevalence despite official messages all over the world that it's wrong would be so common if rape were not somehow natural to the males of this species.

I remember an author saying "we cannot deal with violence until we admit uncomfortable truths, such as the thrill of war." The same is true of rape/sexual abuse; there's no way we can combat it without understanding it, and understanding why some men like to do it even when it's officially discouraged, or why men as a class can be easily encouraged to commit it under the right circumstances, is, I think, important if we ever hope to combat it.

(And yes, the history of conquest and invasion in our species is the history of rape. There's a reason so many men in the world carry the same Y chromosome).

William Grimes #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Sermon 2: Purity and Chastity
By Rev. William H. Grimes
It's time that we discuss a very important chapter in the Bible: I Corinthians 7. I Corinthians 7 talks about married life and the single life. Liberal theologians take this passage as meaning that there is inherent value in marriage, and that marriage is better than being single. The command to "be fruitful and multiply" was ONLY for the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve. It was NOT meant to be a command in 2017! Yet people are breeding like rabbits! Fornicators such as US President Donald Trump are partially to blame for the emulation of wicked behaviors because in the eyes of the Lord Trump was never married, thus guilty of fornication, and his current "marriage" with Melania Trump is an adulterous affair!
I Corinthians 7:1 says that "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Clear as crystal, plain as day! Yet these liberals are insistent upon theological sloppiness. IT IS GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. What in the world do you think that means besides the fact that IT IS GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN?! Can Paul articulate this point any clearer?! Are you liberals dense?!!!
I Corinthians 7:8 likewise states "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I." Even the liberal NIV says that "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." If even the liberal pro-abortion virgin birth denying NIV can be correct about this crucial issue, what is the excuse of these scores of other liberals who do not recognize the fact that this passage says that it is not good for a man to touch a woman, and that it is BETTER for men to stay unmarried and live lives of celibacy?
Liberals love to clap back with the following verse, which says "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." However, this does NOT say that most or all men should marry. Only men who absolutely lack self control and cannot remain chaste and then fall into fornication shall marry. A very different concept, right?! These men are seen as weaker in the Kingdom of God, and they get less reward in heaven for they had the reward of sexual gratification on Earth. Heaven has treasures far beyond the simple and fleeting pleasure of sexual gratification, and sexual gratification is completely unnecessary for humans, and people live fine lives and accomplish great things without it. Christian Sir Isaac Newton was one of the most brilliant minds that God has blessed this world with, and he never desired sexual gratification and lived a life of excellence for God and also his fellow man. This is what we need to set kids up for, not for ignoring God in favor of sexual gratification, marriage, and childrearing! It takes up a lot of time that could be spent worshiping God instead!
Back to the Trump situation, this chapter also says that "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."(I Corinthians 7:10-13) Donald Trump "married" Ivana Trump, but that was even a sham marriage because she is still married to Alfred Winklmayr, who she "divorced" right before marrying Trump, and after Ivana divorced Donald, she had two more "marriages" and "divorces" that are shams unto the Lord, as Ivana is still married to Alfred! Since Ivana has never reconciled with Alfred, and Donald has never been validly married in the eyes of the Lord, Donald is guilty of fornication and Ivana is an adultress! "First Lady" Melania Trump is "married" to Donald Trump in the eyes of the world, and Melania is nothing but a porn star and a trophy wife who has never glorified the Lord! Say what else you want about Michelle Obama, but at least she had some class and dignity, and was not an adulteress! Such a sinful and wicked and prideful man the "godly" have elected to lead the USA! Woe to America! Melania Trump is WICKED AND DECEITFUL AND SINFUL AND LACKS CLASS AND DIGNITY BECAUSE SHE HATES THE THINGS OF GOD AND LOVES MAMMON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To conclude, the wicked Americans need to WAKE UP and realize the sham that is excessive marriage and fornication and adultery because sexual gratification IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT and Onanism and other forms of impurity are NOT FOR THE GODLY and marriage is only for WEAK MEN WHO CANNOT CONTAIN THEIR PASSION LEST THEY FALL INTO FORNICATION, and if you marry and have sexual exploits, YOU WILL BE A LESSER BEING IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN PROVIDED YOU CAN BE A MAN WHO ONLY HAS ONE WIFE AND ONE LOVER! God's people said AMEN!

Dr. Stephen Kim #fundie nycpastor.com

10 WOMEN CHRISTIAN MEN SHOULD NOT MARRY

By Dr. Stephen Kim

In a former post, I detailed 10 men that Christian women ought to avoid when considering marriage.  Today, I present to you my list for Christian men.

“I have perceived among the youths, a young man lacking sense, passing along the street near her corner,taking the road to her house” (Proverbs 7:7-8).

1. The Unbeliever. Scripture is replete with exhortations against such marriages (in both the Old and New Testaments).  Contrary to popular misconception, God’s prohibition against marriages to foreign women in the Old Testament was not due to racism.  Instead, God was simply preventing the spread of idolatry.  Israel, God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, represented what Christians would later represent in the New Testament.  Hence, God’s prohibition against marrying an unbelieving woman in the New Testament (2 Cor 6:14) is simply the extension of God prohibiting a Hebrew man from from marrying a Canaanite woman in the Old Testament (Deut 7:3-4).  “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you” (Deut 7:3-4).

What then, is a believer?  A Christian essentially is someone who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What then, is the gospel?  The gospel is: 1. God is holy, loving, and just.  He therefore, must condemn all sinners to punishment in the flames of eternal hell;  2. You and I are all sinners who deserve nothing but God’s wrath in hell after our deaths; 3. God loved humanity so much that He sent His only Son, Jesus (who was fully God and fully man), to die on the cross for your sins.  Jesus paid the debt for your sins and absorbed God’s wrath on your behalf.  3 days later, Jesus resurrected from the dead; 4. If you repent (turn from) all your sins and personally put your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, God and Savior, then you will have eternal life. (For more information on the saving message of the gospel, click here.)

2. The Divorcee. Jesus clearly taught that unless the first marriage ended due to a partner’s sexual infidelity, a second marriage is to be considered invalid and adulterous (I explain this teaching further here).  A divorced woman, therefore, is off limits for a Christian man–unrepentant adultery being a sin that prevents one from obtaining eternal life (1 Cor 6:9).  “If she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:12). “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
ultery” (Matthew 19:9).

3. The Older Woman. Not a sin, but certainly not God’s ideal.  God expects men to be the spiritual leaders of the home (Eph 5:25) and it certainly requires an extra measure of grace to lead a woman who’s older than you.  Again, if you’re a man and you’re already in such a marriage, then honor it till the day you die–it’s still a valid marriage and divorce is not an option!  However, if you’re not yet married but thinking about an older woman I want to remind you that God intentionally (with good reason!) created Adam before Eve in the First Marriage.  Scripture informs us that God created man first chronologically for the sake of authority!  Listen:  “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:12-13).  Evidently, within the First Marriage, God intended chronology (age) to be a reason for authority.

Apparently, even secular researchers are now beginning to discover results that back up God’s wisdom as demonstrated in the Bible:

“If you’re a woman two or more years older than your husband, your marriage is 53 percent more likely to end in divorce than if he was one year younger to three years older.” (Source: Rebecca Kippen, Bruce Chapman and Peng Yu, “What’s Love Got to Do With It? Homogamy and Dyadic Approaches to Understanding Marital Instability,” Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2009.)“Marriage generally improves life expectancy, but the age gap between a couple affects the life expectancy of men and women very differently.  Marrying an older man shortens a woman’s lifespan, but having a younger husband reduces it even more, the study found.  The findings, drawn from the medical records of two million Danish couples, suggest that the best a woman can do is marry a man of about the same age. Health records have shown previously that men live longer if they have a younger wife, an effect researchers expected to see mirrored in women who married younger men. However, a woman who is between seven and nine years older than her husband has a 20% greater mortality rate than if she were with a man the same age.” (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/12/marrying-younger-man-woman-mortality“A new study shows that women who marry men seven to nine years younger than they are increase their mortality risk by 20 percent. This is the opposite of the finding for men who marry much younger wives – their life expectancyincreases. The new study from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, changes assumptions about how marriage can extend life, owing in part to improved support systems spouses can provide for one another, and the supposed psychological benefit from having a younger spouse, who could become a caretaker should the older spouse become infirm.” (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-married-women-age-gap-can-be-deadly/
married-women-age-gap-can-be-deadly/

4. The Feminist.  There’s no room within Christendom for the “Christian feminist.”  Though women and men have equal value in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28), they certainly have different God-given roles.  Any woman who tries to usurp her husband’s authority or even claims to be a co-leader with her man is gravely dishonoring the God who created her to be subject and obedient to her husband (Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, 1 Pet 3:1).   Eve was distinctly created “for” man, a point that the apostle Paul makes abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 11 when he writes, “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).  Men, your wife is to be your “helper” (Gen 2:18)–not your leader and certainly not your equal in terms of authority.  Look for a woman who agrees with you in this very vital God-ordained relational dynamic.

5. The Immodest-Dresser.  Sexy might inadvertently catch your eyeballs, but it shouldn’t catch your heart.  The way that a woman is willing to expose herself says much about her heart: “And behold, the woman meets him, dressed as a prostitute, wily of heart” (Proverbs 7:10).  The text in Proverbs explains that a woman will dress in a certain way to catch a certain type of man.  Don’t be that man.  Don’t be the fool who’s led by his hormones instead of the Holy Spirit.  Remember: you want godly, not gaudy.  

6. The Gossiper/Slanderer.  Women may love to talk, but there’s wisdom in looking for a woman who speaks with wisdom. Gossip and slander are not good things to have in your marriage. Desperate housewives make for desperate husbands.  “Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.” (1 Timothy 5:13).

7. The Childbirth Avoider. Do not marry a woman who is not willing to have children of her own.  In the Christian worldview, there is absolutely no room for two married, biologically capable, human beings to remain intentionally child-less.  If you are adverse towards having children, then there’s a simple remedy for that: single-hood.   However, if God has called you to marriage, then He actually expects children.  Both the New and Old Testaments are very clear on this teaching: “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring” (Malachi 2:15).  “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Timothy 2:15).

8. The Wander-Luster.  There’s nothing wrong with the occasional family vacation.  There is something very wrong with a girl who regularly needs to be “out of the home.”  The constant desire for new experiences, new places, new faces, and new forms of entertainment only serves to clearly manifest the fact that the woman has not found her rest in God.  Believe it or not, Scripture speaks repeatedly about such women:  “She is loud and wayward; her feet do not stay at home” (Proverbs 7:11); “Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:13).

9. The Career-first Woman. Now, I want to clarify something here.  There is nothing wrong with a woman who works (Acts 16:14), what’s wrong is a woman who puts her career ahead of her family.  Modern American society might hate to hear this, but God made men to be the providers and women to be the nurturers of the home (in most instances).  It’s okay for a woman to be a doctor, attorney, or any other professional.  However, if her career is coming at the expense of her home, then something is wrong.  If day-care is raising her young children while she’s working, then something is wrong.  I understand that there might be a season of life where the wife might have to be the main bread-winner due to her husband’s unemployment, but it should not be the desired norm. The woman ought to be willing (and even desirous–to some extent) to give up her job for the sake of raising her kids in the Lord.  “So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander” (1 Tim 5:14).

10. The Devotion-less Woman.  Is the woman having a regular, daily devotional time with her God?  If she doesn’t love the Lord now, chances are, she won’t love the Lord after marriage.  (Don’t delude yourself–you’re not going to change her.)  You want to marry a girl who has an intimate relationship with Jesus.  Jesus (not you) has to be the first man in her life.  Here are some good questions to ask: Does she have an active prayer life?  Does she have a heart for evangelism?  Is she hungry for God’s Word?  What does her pastor think about her?

Do you remember this account from Scripture:

Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. [39] And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. [40] But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” [41] But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, [42] but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42 ESV)

Marry the Mary (no pun intended).  Such women have picked “…the good portion, which will not be taken away” from them. God be with you men.  Strong families start with strong wives.  Choose wisely and choose in the Lord!

Diggindeeper #fundie bibleforums.org

Bluerose, I looked at your profile and according to you, you are a Christian. I notice this is your first post. You came to this board and headed straight here to ask about this. So, I'm not going to waste your time or mine. And I'm going to be blunt. I think that's what you need.

Let me say first of all that I don't think anyone is here by accident, you included.

Now, God does not make mistakes. He created man and he created woman. Never, never in His word does he condone or even hint that its fine to be homosexual, or lesbian, or even bisexual. And Sweetie, you and I don't have time to waste like we once did. So bluntly, you were NOT 'just born this way.'

You marked that you are a Christian. Its time to act like it. The days of pretending are over. You don't have the luxury to ponder which sin you want to participate in any longer. I advise that you repent and stop this silly pondering. Don't mock my God again with that "If I marry my boyfriend, in my whole life I will never have even kissed a woman." Christ Jesus did not die that awful death so you can say you are a Christian and come here wanting us to say...what? Do you think a one of us here would advise you to go on with this?

Time is too short. Its time to repent and get your heart right with God. What you need to do is repent and pray and get into that Bible. If you don't have one, there is Bibles right here that you can read. You and that boyfriend need to be praying together and studying the Word together and find a good Bible teaching church for the two of you, whether you end up marrying or not.

Its time to stop this mockery of Almighty God. Here's some scripture for you to think on, rather than the foolish things you have been thinking on:

Romans 1:21-32
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Numerous Indian men #fundie bbc.co.uk

Police in India say they have credible evidence that widespread sexual assaults took place at New Year's Eve celebrations in Bangalore.
Several women have said they were molested by mobs of men, though police say they have had no official complaints from victims yet.
One woman, a marketing professional who asked to be identified only as Pooja, was at the event and told the BBC what happened to her.

Pooja's story
On 31 December, we decided to go to a bar on Mahatma Gandhi (MG) Road. At 11.30 I came out to make a call and found that everything was quiet and calm.
At 12:30 my friend who was to pick me up called me to say that the police had put barricades and he had to park his motorbike at the Shankar Nag theatre. He told me to start walking towards that side and he would meet me halfway. I said goodbye to my friends and started walking towards the Brigade Road side.

Athlete saves girls from 'molesters'
India anger as minister blames 'Western' behaviour
#NotAllMen angers Indian women

In between, I saw people rushing and walking but I did not expect them to do anything. I believed Bangalore was a safe city until then. What happened next shocked me a lot.

People were pushing and shoving, touching, grabbing, groping and everything was happening on that street. It was not only to me. It was happening to other girls too. They were all scared. 'I felt so helpless'. Suddenly, someone pushed me and I fell down. There was no-one to pick me up. Then a group of girls helped me get up. Their friends had formed a circle around them so they could walk safely.
I asked them if I could go with them. Even then when we were walking, there were guys who were trying to touch here and there.

Police used batons to push back the crowds at points. There was not a single face you could make out or who was doing it. As soon as you turned you would be groped or grabbed. There were so many people there that you could not pinpoint who was doing it. There was a lathi [baton] charge on Brigade Road so people were running in all directions.

I felt helpless. Although I have hands and legs and I could abuse and slap them, I could not do anything. I didn't know who was touching me and groping me.
When I came and told my friends, they asked me who were the people? Were they from the slum? I had no answer.

In the pub too, groping was happening. When we pay 6,000-7,000 rupees ($88; £72) to go to a pub to get entry to celebrate, you expect people to be of a certain class. At least, that they wouldn't do such things. These people weren't illiterate or uneducated.

They don't know what effect it has on a girl's life. It has an everlasting impact.
Who would I file a complaint against? I don't know a face or name. Even if I go to the police, they will ask who the complaint is against.

Police have asked people to send in any evidence of assaults. There were so many people that the policemen were highly outnumbered. It was not possible for them to keep a watch on each and every person.

This has become a big issue in the last three days. Why hasn't any action been taken? What are they waiting for? Yes, I have been through such situations earlier. But I have punched, slapped and complained to nearby authorities. I have been in Bangalore for three years. I thought it was a safe city.
Seeing this mass molestation was really shocking. When I spoke to some people, I was told that this had happened last year as well. So why weren't arrangements made? Instead of pretending nothing will happen, authorities should make efforts to curb this.

Pooja was talking to BBC Hindi's Imran Qureshi.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

Once again same-sex marriage has come into the news this week, with the recent release of The Nashville Statement. This statement has been put together in the states, with some very-well known names backing it as signatories. Names like John Piper, D.A. Carson, Darrell Bock, J.I. Packer, Vaughn Roberts, Sam Allberry, and much more. This document is an important to look at, as it gives a bit of insight to what many prominent evangelical church leaders make of this issue. Needless to say, this document is a highly important one to look at.

In this article, we will cover the various articles included in the statement. We will investigate each of the 14 articles, and see whether they line up with scripture or not.

N.B. Can I encourage everyone who reads this article to read the statement and their preamble.

The Fourteen Articles
As noted there are 14 articles in all in this declaration. Each of the articles affirms one thing denies another and those two things are linked.

The first article centers around marriage. Stating that God has designed to be between one man and one woman. The next article focuses on sex before marriage, stating that God’s will is for sex to only occur within the marriage bed. The third article focuses on a view of marriage known as complementarianism, stating that God created Adam and Eve as equal in the eyes of the Lord, but different in role and purpose. Up next is the third article, which continues along the thread started in article two. This third article states that Adam and Eve were created equal in value in God’s eyes, but different in roles and purpose. The fourth article is next which continues the theme of the third article, stating that these divinely ordered differences were God’s intention from the dawn of creation.

We then move on to the fifth and sixth article, which starts to look at sexual identity. The fifth article says that the group who put this statement together believe that the physical is a key part of God’s plan for our lives. Article seven states that if you happen to be born with a physical disorder of sex development you are still welcome to love and serve the Lord.

Next, we move on to a section of articles focusing on sexual identity and attraction. Article seven states that our sexual self-conception (another way of sexual identity), should be defined in God and how He has made us. Adopting a self-conception that runs contrary to this is not Godly. The eighth article says that those who experience same-sex attraction can still live rich Godly lives, but that same-sex attraction is not part of God’s design or plan for one’s life. Article nine is an article which says that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from marriage covenant (one man and one woman), and instead leads them to sexual immorality. This distortion is true for anyone they say, heterosexual and homosexual. The article does also say that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies acting upon it.

Article ten then leads us into a section about how we as Christians should respond when confronted with this issue. The tenth article starts it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism, and affirming such immoral sexual desires is a major departure from true Christian faithfulness and witness. The article also says that the approval of sexual immorality is not just a difference of opinion. The eleventh article that our duty as Christians is to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to each other as male and female. Article twelve states very openly that God gives the mercy and the power that can lead a follower of the Lord to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner that is worthy of the Lord. Article twelve denies that the grace of God is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins. Article thirteen really caps off this section well by saying that the grace of God is powerful enough to allow people to forsake their transgender self-conceptions and to come to accept the God ordained link between one’s biological self, and their self-conception as male and female.

The fourteen articles then conclude with the article that states that Jesus Christ came into the world to save the world the world through His death and resurrection and to forgive our sins. The article also clearly says that salvation is available to everyone who repents of their sin in Christ alone as their Lord and Saviour.

My Thoughts on the Fourteen Articles
I have to be honest here, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been stated in these fourteen articles in the Nashville statement. They are grounded well in Biblical truth and are upfront and honest about the issue at hand. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Bible is clear about this subject. So much so that even Jesus Christ states that homosexuality is immoral. The Jesus side of this can be complex, so I won’t go into that in this article, but I will put it together in an article and release that some point soon.

This subject is a very sticky subject and is one that needs to be handled with grace and truth. Notice the two go hand in hand. God calls us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. And the question will always be one to raise, what’s more loving, to not tell someone that what they are doing is dishonouring to God, or to tell them? I can’t turn around and say it’s the former, it’s most definitely the latter. If I’m about to drink alcohol (I use this illustration because I can’t), I’d want those who are around me at the time to tell me not to, why? Because the results for me if I do are not worth doing it for. The same principle applies for sin in our lives that we willfully commit. There is a big difference between making a mistake which is sinful and choosing to act in a way that is.

So I have to say, honestly, I agree 100% with this statement, and the articles included. But what about you, what do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Miguel #fundie theantifeminist.com

Ephebophilia (or ‘hebephilia’) is a word commonly bandied about online by individuals wishing to differentiate between men (like themselves), who are attracted towards underage teenagers, and ‘paedophiles’ who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Of course, the media, and the legal system, makes no such distinction. However, many who would champion the right of men to have sexual relations with girls currently under the age of consent feel strongly that if this distinction was more widely known and accepted then it could facilitate a more reasonable public discussion on the age of consent and the laws and punishments relating to sex with teens. Paedophiles are evil perverts and beyond the pale, but ephebophiles? Well, they are not so very different from the average red-blooded man – they just like their women a little bit younger. Yes, they are suffering from a clinical disorder, as paedophiles are, but it’s not so harmful and they are a lot closer to the normal spectrum than subhuman paedos.

So is ephebophilia a real thing? Does the concept serve any useful purpose in the context of the feminist war upon male sexuality and age of consent issues in particular? And am I just as much as a hebo as some of my former readers who have championed the label in the past, such as ‘Human Stupidity‘?

As regulars will know, I’ve made a point of strongly disavowing the very idea of ephebophilia. There are two good reasons for this.

Firstly, my experience of ‘ephebophiles’ both here and elsewhere online. Self-identified ephebophiles tend to be universally 1/ clearly autistic 2/ tactically clueless 3/ prone to paedocrisy and even 4/ Left-Wing and pro-feminist (obviously some exceptions, such as HS) and certainly ‘anti-misogynistic’.

To put it bluntly, based upon my experience, such people are worse than useless in the fight against the Sexual Trade Union. I’d rather go into battle against an Isis horde with only a dozen disabled, pacifist, transgenders alongside me than these creepy ‘ephebophiles’. Hell, I’d rather take on a handful of Russian Ultras with a thousand English football hooligans to back me up. That’s how pathetic these aspie hebos are when it comes to the street fight we are all in.

Secondly, I see no strategic advantage whatsoever in embracing the label of ephebophilia. ‘Hebos’ are so clueless that they really do believe, in their aspie naivety, that the same hysteric mobs who burn down the homes of pediatricians will take kindly to a group defining themselves by a slightly different Ancient Greek term meaning ‘ perverted love of underage girls with hair and perky breasts’.

Of course, this isn’t quite fair. Ephebophilia means ‘love of youth’ (form the Greek word for youth – ‘hebe’). And the attraction to young post-pubescent girls is indeed normal. The point is, to paedohysterics, a word doesn’t change a thing. David Futrelle, child snuff porn apologist and paedocrite that he is, is right to mock the idea that it could ‘win over’ feminists or the paedo hating population at large. In fact, it could make things very much worse. I have spoken here before of the fact that shows like ‘To Catch a Predator’, and ‘anti-paedophile’ vigilantes such as Stinson Hunter, nearly always target men who are trying to have sex with girls only a little under the age of consent. They never try to entrap real perverts and child molestors.

The reason why we have this insane moral panic over ‘paedophiles’ is not because perverts who molest 5 year old children are hated. It’s because society hates and fears even more the normal men who break age of consent laws by having sex with nubile young teens. Paedocritical men are shouting at the bulge in their pants at the thought of climbing into bed with a sexy 14 year old, and all the legal consequences that would follow for them, and paedohysteric woman (and feminists) are shouting at the millions of men who would not even hide the bulge in their pants and openly pursue teenage girls if it wasn’t for the law, the shaming, and the feminist induced hysteria over ‘paedophilia’.

It is true to an extent that establishing the concept of ephebophilia in mainstream discourse would help to clarify what real paedophilia is and isn’t. Real paedophilia is a psychological perversion involving the sexual preference for pre-pubescent children (in today’s USA, that means girls under the age of 10 or so). But at the same time, I see absolutely no advantage in replacing one clinically defined pathology with another. Anti-feminism is the fight against the feminist suppression and pathologizing of normal male heterosexuality. It is normal for men to be sexually attracted to females who have started puberty and who have the maximum number of fertile years ahead of them.

Ephebophile activists believe they can identify themselves as a group and fight for and eventually win their sexual rights, just as gays (supposedly) did. No they can’t. However, MEN can perhaps reclaim their sexual rights against feminists. Only normal, heterosexual MEN can win in the fight against the war on male sexuality.

With all this said, however, I wouldn’t be honest not to add my own personal experiences over the last couple of years, and describe how they have perhaps enabled me to look at the ‘ephebophile question’ in a new and more nuanced light. For some time I’d largely given up on dating. I was getting older, I was still introverted and awkward around the opposite sex, and in any case, as ‘the Anti-Feminist’ I saw all women as rapists, every one of them limiting male sexuality in order to futher their own selfish sexual ends. Walking down the street and smiling at a pretty jailbait as an act of defiance was the limit of female involvement in my world.

For over two years now I’ve been spending the majority of my time in Eastern Europe. As most readers accept here, Slavic women are much more feminine and better looking than their Anglo counterparts, with Russians at the very apex of the female beauty pyramid. Furthermore, they age rather differently too. Yes, of course any normal man would be attracted to even an average Russian 15 year old girl, but the ‘Manosphere Myth’ that I’ve criticised here in the past regarding peak fertility and women reaching their maximum attractiveness at 21-25 isn’t so implausible when you constantly see such stunningly beautiful long legged slim women in their early twenties all around you.

In Eastern Europe I don’t get the achingly painful sense of regret at seeing a pretty 14 year old girl and thinking that by the time she is legal, she will already be losing her youthful charm and beauty. The fact is, in the UK, and even in countries such as France and Germany, the majority of girls are burnt out, bitter, overweight slags by the time they reach 18. Because of diet, lifestyle, and genetics, even pretty 14 year olds do start to lose it by the time they are off to university. In Eastern Europe, puberty arrives a little later, lasts longer, and everywhere you turn there are 20 year old women who are ravishingly beautiful, have perfect skin, possess the long slim legs of ballerinas, and who wear elegant fashions with a graceful air.

Furthermore, I’ve fallen in love with at least a couple of such specimans. One of them is now 26. I have seen photos of her when she was a teenager and the curious thing is she didn’t look anything special even at 17. By 21 she was modelling, and even now as she approaches her 30’s, I get jealous looks constantly when I am with her, even in a city where HB8s are the norm. Even the likes of Krauser PUA would give me a nod of respect if he saw me with her. Look closely and she has crow feet developing around her eyes. Her skin is no longer perfect. But if I could re-wind time I would not wish her any younger than 21. And it’s not down to make-up either. I have seen her without, and she is still beautiful, and more beautiful than she was when she was a schoolgirl.

Another of my girlfriends is 20, and very pretty. She still looks like a teen, and even behaves like one in many ways, though thankfully more in a cute than insufferable manner. Although beautiful, I do not recieve so many jealous looks when I am with her as when I am with the woman who is a good deal older. This girl, I only met recently. I have seen photos of her when she was 18, and she looked almost perfect. I would have liked to have known her then, and I would still not object to a girlfriend such as her who is 16 or 17. However, in Eastern Europe the age of consent is not such a weighty issue given the mass of beautiful females aged above even 18. And this is probably why paedohysteria is primarily an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.

So in the light of my experiences, how would I finally appraise ‘ephebophila’? As to whether it is a real thing, I am both more and less inclined to say yes. Despite my disavowal of the term here in the past, I somewhat suspected that I might be ‘a little different’ to the average man. Not just in being honest about attraction to young teenagers, but perhaps more strongly attracted than most. Although partly right, I think I had simply fallen into the same mistake that I’d rightly accused self-identified ‘ephebophiles‘ of making. The honesty to accept that teens are attractive can lead you to identify yourself, even subconsciously, as ‘somebody who is attracted to teenage girls’ and different to other men, and to somewhat ignore the charms of slightly older females. And this is compounded by the disgraceful state of femininity in the Anglo-Saxon world, a world in which the only feminine and loveable girls left are indeed mostly under 18.

If ephebophilia exists, therefore, it is not a clinical disorder, such as real paedophilia is, but rather a situation in a man’s life brought about by feminism and the state of women in the Western world.

And as a badge, it’s still tactically clueless and aspie.

My experiences of falling in love have also altered somewhat my views on ‘normal male sexuality’ in the sense that I now give more value to the merits of sex within a loving relationship. Of course, I am not now claiming that the female monogamous system is ‘right’ for men. I am currently in love with two beautiful women, and I think I have emotional room left for a couple more as well, hehe. All I’m saying is I no longer mock the notion of love, and that sex with love is, after all, something that every man should be able to experience as part of a happy life. I also look at porn less, and so I have to admit, I am closer to Eivind Berge’s view that real relationships are better than fapping. However, I still feel that he doesn’t understand the dangers of giving the slightest credence to feminist arguments against porn. And also, not many men can have girlfriends as good looking as his, and not many men approaching 50, as I am, can walk down the street with a beautiful 20 year old, or a HB9 26 year old, as I can. Porn never stopped me having relationships. Rather, it was a life-saving substitute in fallow times. It also helped to keep the flame of desire alive as I sank into middle-age.

And that thought leads nicely onto a final word regarding my contribution to men’s rights activism and the lack of updates on this blog. Yes, I am in some ways happier and more content than before, and therefore no longer feel the need or have the desire to carry the stress and time commitment of regularly posting articles here. It’s also true that I certainly no longer feel any personal pain at current age of consent laws. I would certainly be satisfied forever more at having relationships with beautiful Slavic girls aged 16 above, or even 18 above. But this certainly isn’t the reason for my lack of involvement in men’s rights. I still maintain that the ‘age of consent’, or more correctly, all the many issues that revolve around it, as part of the wider assault upon male sexuality by feminists, is the leading men’s rights issue. But perhaps I am less inclined to maintain this site, just when I am finding some happiness and sexual satisfaction, to cater to disloyal self-identified ephebophile readers such as the likes of Jon or Human-Stupidity, themselves prone to paedocrisy whenever it suits them.

angelforisrael #racist angelforisrael.wordpress.com

[Note: The sentences with dates after them are links to other articles]

Racism and Black on White Violence in Obamamerika Pt 3
image

Also see Racism and Black on White Violence in Obamamerika Pt 2

Jesse Jackson says NYPD officer is a murderer for not allowing black teen to shoot and kill another black teen 08/12/2013

Jesse Jackson says that white men who defend themselves from deadly attacks by black men are murderers. He says that black men are being “murdered by vigilantes, police, and security guards.” He then cite two cases, one of which is Shaaliver Douse.
The usual gang of black race hustlers are accusing the NYPD of shooting Douse without just cause.
10,865 Blacks Murdered by OTHER BLACKS Since Trayvon Died … Name One 07/18/2013

To be exact, the shameful truth is that 93% of African-American murders are committed by other African-Americans. That is breathtakingly awful when you consider how incensed the African-American community is about the Trayvon tragedy, no matter what you believe about Zimmerman’s guilt.

Media label black-mob violence ‘mischievous teens’ 04/01/2013

Chicago media are running out of ways to avoid talking about black mob violence.
Over the weekend, 500 black people rampaged through several Chicago neighborhoods: beating, pushing and attacking police and tourists and residents. Even a police horse.
Surge of black violence called ‘urban terrorism’ 01/30/2013

With dozens of episodes over the last five years, Indianapolis has to be near the top of any list of cities with sustained, violent, extensive and numerous cases of black mob violence. This “crisis” of “urban terrorism,” as the new chief of police calls it, is now a regular feature of life in this Midwestern city once thought to be a haven from racial turmoil. The latest examples are focused downtown at the Circle Centre Mall – a gleaming display of downtown redevelopment when it opened in 1996. This multi-story story retail center, connected by covered walkways to nine hotels and the convention center, was once anchored by Nordstrom.
‘Sambo, Uncle Tom n*gger': Self-appointed race cops unleash hate on Cosby and Barkley for Zimmerman remarks 07/19/2013

Think skin color should be the sole deciding factor in how someone thinks, speaks and acts? Then this is the crowd for you.
Cracker and Uncle Thomas 07/19/2013

I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and I’ve got to hand it to the Left – they are gifted moralizers. Nobody can put on a sanctimonious soapboxing spectacle like a Progressive Leftist. Do you believe, for whatever reason, that marriage is between one man and one woman? Then you’re a homophobe. Do you believe that men are generally taller and have larger biceps than women? Then you’re a sexist. Do you believe that people who move to America ought to come here legally and become American? Then you’re a nativist. Do you believe that 16 years of global temperature stability might mean that global warming isn’t actually happening? Then you’re a flat-earther. And, of course, if you disagree about any given issue with a Progressive, you’re a racist. Yep, they have all sorts of fancy words to describe how you don’t agree with them, and they use them all – a lot.
List: Violence, Lawlessness Since Zimmerman Verdict 07/18/2013

The same media that attempted to blame a mother of five in Wasilla, Alaska, for a mass shooting in Arizona (because of her use of standard crosshairs on a campaign map) is the same media that repeatedly described the shockingly lawless Occupy Wall Street movement as “mostly peaceful,” and is now attempting to persuade America that the anti-Zimmerman protests currently being ginned up by an NBC News anchor (MSNBC’s Al Sharpton) are also “mostly peaceful.”
Why Did The Obama Administration “Organize And Manage” Protests Against George Zimmerman? 07/10/2013

Is the Obama administration at least partially responsible for turning the George Zimmerman trial into such a huge national spectacle? Judicial Watch has obtained documents which prove that the Community Relations Service, a division of the Department of Justice, was sent to Sanford, Florida in late March 2012 “to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman“. This included spending quite a bit of money, arranging meetings between the NAACP and local leaders, and providing police escorts for protesters. Someone needs to ask Obama why the federal government was doing this.
History Lesson: Racist Democrats and the Big Lie 03/28/2013

And yet this myth persists — in fact, it’s just about the only response today’s Democrats have to their own sordid history: pinning it on the other guy. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable that among the 21 who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be found Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., the founder of the Hillbilly Dynasty; Robert “KKK” Byrd, the Conscience of the Senate; and Sleepin’ Sam Ervin of Watergate fame.
Violent threats follow Detroit takeover 03/28/2013

Jesse Jackson decries ‘plantocracy’ while warnings include disruptions, burning
The official state takeover of Detroit is only newly accomplished, and there are signs that there soon will be unrest, or worse.
Head of National Black Chamber of Commerce on Obama’s priorities: ‘This is not America’ 08/11/2013

Committed to successful black entrepreneurship, Harry C. Alford, Jr. has been president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce since 1993.
During that time, he has spoken out with increasing boldness against the liberal orthodoxy hurting the black community. In 2009, he took on Democratic California Sen. Barbara Boxer at a cap-and-trade hearing, and that video went viral. In this interview with Alford, he continues to boldly confront the politics of government dependency, which he believes stand opposed to the founding principles of capitalism, private property and opportunity.
How Obama Poisoned Race Relations in America By Arnold Ahlert 07/26/2013

A new poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reveals that public perceptions about race relations in America have taken a devastating hit since the election of Barack Obama. At the beginning of the president’s first term, 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks had a positive view of American race relations.

Baby Benjiman #homophobia youtube.com

(=Talking about a gay man Mr. Fred Rogers was friends with=)

Baby Benjamin: Because what people do in private should have nothing to do with how you treat them. Mr Roger's and all true Christians believe homosexual behavior is a sin against God as well as all sex outside of marriage. The point is they have to answer to God after death seizes us all and we are brought to judgement. The job of a Christian is to treat everyone with love, respect, and to tell the truth even when it hurts and others will hurt you for it.

Ayla Sabatini: For everyone arguing in this thread, Mr. Rodgers has stated to a gay friend that he found both men and women attractive. Do with this info as you will while I look up the article I read that from and link it.

Baby Benjamin: Sabatini be "attracted" to anyone is not the sin. It's engaging in homosexual behavior. If I gave you a beautiful painting as a gift and you used it as a door stop, is that offensive? Same is true for male on male and female on female. God gave an awesome gift of sex and some say eh I'll use it the way I want. And it's a sin. Take it up with God on judgement day.

Ayla Sabatini: Those are not the same, me disrespecting a painting you gave me is not the same as me having sex with someone who is the same gender as me. If you're offended by what someone does in private, them you have some serious issues. Here's the article: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/07/fred-rogers-celebrated-as-bisexual-icon-after-his-comments-on-sexual-attraction-resurface/Whether this is true or not, Mr. Rogers is still Mr. Rogers and we should love him just the way he was.

Baby Benjamin: God is offended. It's not personal to any particular believer it's me telling what the bible says "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful , and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."Romans 1:26‭-‬271

David J. Stewart #sexist jesus-is-savior.com

Men were sexually aroused 100-years-ago by simply seeing a woman's ankles and arms, since it was at the time BEYOND the normal dress for women. Today men see so many women dressed immorally that it has become socially acceptable for women to walk around 90% naked. But men are still men, and they do become aroused by the preponderance of nude girls and women. Thus, sexual sins are epidemic in America today! Women and girls who wear dresses are laughed at and mocked to scorn by the wicked, just as they laughed at Noah before the flood.

Out of 3,232 magazine pages, over 600 contained sexual advertising in 2003. Have you been through a retail or grocery store lately? Literally, 90% of the magazine covers contain sexual advertising!!!

“Looking at 3,232 full-page ads published in 1983, 1993 and 2003 in popular magazines Cosmopolitan, Redbook, Esquire, Playboy, Newsweek and Time, researchers found sexual imagery in 20 percent of the ads. Using sex to sell everything from alcohol to banking services has increased over the years: 15 percent of ads used sex to sell in 1983; that percentage grew to 27 percent in 2003.”

SOURCE: Magazine trends study finds increase in advertisements using sex

As you read earlier, over half of all alcohol ads exploit women sexually for filthy lucre (money). That doesn't surprise me, since alcohol is Liquid Devil. But what is tragic and shameful is that “POINT OF GRACE” (a professed Christian female gospel group) uses sexually suggestive advertising on their album to make money. There's no mistaking the way they are sitting, the short length of their skirts, the way the woman in the center is sitting. The entire picture is sexually inviting. It's subtle, but that's all the Devil needs to put immoral ideas into people's minds. Human nature doesn't change! Satan's greatest tactic is to make people think that he doesn't exist. Satan makes people think that something immoral is moral.

Shame on them!!! Men are having enough of a hard time these days without whores wearing shorts skirts, with the camera positioned just right to make people think dirty. But you say, “Preacher, you just have a dirty mind.” No, I have a man's mind!!! And you're an idiot if you don't know what I'm talking about. Don't act stupid, the Lord is coming back soon and we all need to redeem the time. Women ought to wear long dresses!

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Obama: Gay “Marriage” Over Religious Freedom

In a recent address to the LGBT community, US President Barack Obama made several startling claims that only highlight the continuing animosity and intolerance towards Bible-believing Christians. He said that “Freedom of religion isn't reason enough to deny any American their constitutional rights,” referring, of course, to gay “marriage,” and he added that “it's important to recognize that some parts of the country remain uncomfortable with same-sex marriage and that it will take time for them to catch up to the majority of Americans who support such unions,” according to CBS News.

The President went on to say, “We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions . . . . But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.” This is the same President who, in 2013, addressed Planned Parenthood, a child-killing machine (i.e., by abortion, which is the murder of children; an estimated 55 million lives have been taken by abortion clinics since Roe v. Wade in 1973), and said “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Frankly, President Obama cannot be talking about the same God of the Bible that I worship! Now, he has been known to selectively quote from the Bible when he gives some of his speeches, but he neglects so much of the Bible. For example, if he quoted Christ in Matthew 19, he would have to tell people that our Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught clearly that true marriage was one man and one woman. And if President Obama quoted Romans 1, he would have to admit that homosexual behavior is sinful because of “vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:26–28).

So, according to the President of the United States, gay “marriage” is more important than religious freedom for Americans. Now, what the President—and many other leaders who support gay “marriage”—don’t seem to understand (or refuse to care about) is that those who are forced to condone gay “marriage” against their religious beliefs are having their First Amendment constitutional rights denied. If Christians aren’t allowed to act on their beliefs, such as their Bible-based belief that gay “marriage” is sinful, as God’s Word clearly states and as Jesus clearly teaches us, then what kind of religious freedom is that? It’s no freedom at all! In the end, all that happens is Christians giving up their constitutional rights—protected by the First Amendment—as the government tramples on their liberties.

Ben Carson #transphobia thehill.com

Ben Carson's remarks during San Francisco visit spark backlash

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson sparked backlash after he reportedly said "big, hairy men" were trying to enter homeless shelters for women during a meeting at the agency's San Fransisco office.

Three people at the meeting told The Washington Post that they interpreted his remark to refer to transgender women. Two agency staff members told the newspaper that he also complained that society did not know the difference between men and women anymore.

The staff members told the Post that the comment upset many people present at the Tuesday HUD meeting and at least one woman left in protest.

A government official also told the newspaper that Carson has made fun of transgender people during meetings in Washington.

"His overall tone is dismissive and joking about these people," the official said. "It's disrespectful of the people we are trying to serve."

“The Secretary does not use derogatory language to refer to transgendered individuals. Any reporting to the contrary is false," a senior HUD official told the Post in a statement after being asked about Carson's reported remarks.

The official, who was not in the meetings, told the newspaper that Carson was talking about men pretending to be women to get into battered women’s shelters rather than referring to transgender women as “big, hairy men.”

The Hill has reached out to HUD for comment.

One staffer who took notes during the meeting told The Post that Carson said "Transgender people should get the same rights as everyone else, but they don’t get to change things for everybody else.”

He reportedly followed the comment by saying that shelter operators and women's groups informed him that homeless women would be traumatized if “big, hairy men” enter shelters identifying themselves as women. He also reportedly said that single-sex shelters should be able to turn away transgender people.

“That was the first time any of us heard him use such derogatory language,” one staff member told the newspaper.“He’s more tactful when he’s talking before Congress, whereas this sounded like a slur to me.”

National Center for Transgender Equality spokeswoman Gillian Branstetter was quoted condemning Carson's comment in the Post.

“It’s gravely insulting to have the specter of violence from cis gender men used to restrict the rights of transgender people who are ordinarily the victims of that violence,” she said. “It’s a mythical notion that policies that are inclusive of transgender people somehow pose a threat."

"It’s frankly despicable that such a harmful notion would be used by someone charged with facilitating programs meant to help people in need, many of whom are transgender,” Branstetter added.

Following the Post's report, Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.) released a statement calling for Carson's resignation.

“Secretary Carson's remarks are revolting. These comments only affirm that his recent efforts to erase the Equal Access Rule are rooted in ignorance, not sound policy. By allowing shelters to discriminate against transgender Americans, the Secretary is putting lives in danger," she said.

The remarks were also met with criticism online.

Carson has previously sparked controversy over remarks used to refer to transgender people. He told The Hill in 2016 that being being transgender “doesn’t make any sense.” According to the Post, he has also said transgender people are "abnormal" and shouldn't be in the military.

Guanting Zhou #fundie samanthapfield.com

[Context: A response to "Yes, You Hate Me" in which a Progrsssive Christian calls out evangelical homophobia, in the wake of the Orlando Massacre.]

Just because you have urges to do something doesn't mean you should, and just because people tell you acting on your urges is wrong, doesn't mean they hate you. You twist the sermon on the mount beyond recognition. Jesus says looking on a woman with lust is committing adultery. What then would a man looking at a man with lust, or a woman looking at a woman with lust be to Jesus? Following your line of reasoning leads to having no standards.

Did you know that there are people in the world who identify as zoophiles, and believe that having sex with animals is just an expression of love? And no, I'm not saying bestiality is equivalent to homosexuality, or saying acceptance of one inevitably leads to the other. The point I'm making is all of your arguments could be used to say we must accept the actions of those people. I mean most people have a visceral disgust for bestiality, does that mean they are headed for hellfire?

God has standards which He's laid out for us to follow. Those standards don't revolve solely around consent and love. No one is saying you don't have every right to exist exactly as you are. They're saying you shouldn't follow every urge you feel. What you like to do to get yourself off is not who you are. And, hey, you have the right to do those things anyway. Nobody is trying to take your legal right to have sex with who you want away. They're just informing you that God doesn't approve of it, as you'll find confirmed in both scripture and church tradition.

I would have a lot more respect for you if you would just stop applying the Christian label to yourself. In every article you seem to revile the teachings of scripture. You don't seem to hold a confident belief in any traditional Christian doctrine. I doubt you really believe the resurrection occurred or believe there is a personal God or afterlife. So why do you cling to the title Christian?

There's only one possible answer. You're trying to ruin Christianity for everyone else. It's very insidious. You know that you don't believe in it any more, but rather than just leave Christians alone to their own devices and enjoy your life of Godless sapphic hedonism, you have to destroy it for the rest of us. You can't stand that anyone else goes on believing what you once did, so you creep in like a wolf among sheep, calling yourself a Christian so you can stealthily inject your anti-family doctrines into the minds of the innocent. You won't be happy until wives turn against husbands, sons and daughters turn against mothers and fathers, and every traditional Christian belief is jettisoned. You want churches to become secular humanist self-help philosophy centers with a thin veneer of Christianity.

I'm a live and let live type. While I'd prefer you were a Christian, I would much prefer you go about your life as an atheist/agnostic polyamorous intersectional bisexual and leave us Christians alone, rather than roleplaying as a Christian so you can drag others down with you. Show some intellectual honesty for once in your life. There's no point in being lukewarm, you'll get spat out anyway.

werewolves-do-wander & vanwmaf #racist vanwmaf.tumblr.com

Are you a race betrayer? Why do you so eagerly wish men of your own race to become sissys and transgenders? Don't you worry they will be bred out by White men?

(werewolves-do-wander)
It has nothing to do with what I wish, it has everything to do with what they are best at, and I encourage them to follow that so they can lead very happy and fulfilling lives. I hope they won’t be bred out by White men because that means Japanese women would be bred out and then who would get to enjoy the exquisite joy and sexual pleasure that only we can provide?

Besides, many White men prefer their sissies and transgender sexual partners to be Asian. The males have many feminine features to begin with and it makes them often quite sought after. They get to experience serving, and being dominantly fucked by more Alphas than most.

Why is this a hard concept for people to understand? I could be upset that I am not 6 feet tall and White and have blonde hair and fit the definition of a supermodel and most commonly accepted symbols of beauty in our culture or I could use all of the sexual advantages I do have at my disposal.

I get to engage into the fantasy of a geisha and embrace a submissive side that men fight over hand and fist before wanting to fuck a vanilla White woman whether she is a supermodel or not. I get to embrace the dominant and Alpha side of my personality because trust me, when a man finally does want to submit he wants the greatest amount of submission he can achieve and a 5 foot tiny Asian woman making him kneel before her accomplishes that very easily.

(vanwmaf)
It has nothing to do with what I wish, it has everything to do with what they are best at…

I agree with this line of yours so much!

I understand it as comparative advantage in global economy, e.g. China and SE Asia produce cheap products, Japan produces electronics, Australia produces dairy, USA produces films and high-tech, etc.. Only in this way could every country bring their best into play.

Likewise, Asian girls dating White guys and Asian guys being their servants in chastity cages will make everyone happy. Why resist that?

I used to dislike Asian girls dating foreigners, but now I happily and proudly embrace the beauty and harmony of WMAF.

w1g2 #sexist reddit.com

Mizzou Official Claims Tall Men Asking Out Short Women Could Constitute Sexual Misconduct

So in a time when most single women on the planet want a 6 foot plus guy, this fuck knuckle is suggesting its sexual misconduct to offer them want they want?

This is what we should suggest to women who claim they are afraid to say no to sex to men that are bigger and stronger than them.

I can see the headline now: "Femimists tell women: stop sleeping with men who are tall, muscled, and have a dangerous vibe. Only have sex with men who are short, fat, and wouldn't harm a flea!"

Then the next day:

"Absolutely no women are feminists anymore!"

NotQuiteChadLite #fundie incels.co

MGTOW is like the edgy, sour-grapes attitude version of Incel

What I mean by this, is that incels are typically self deprecating, self aware of their situation, and not delusional when it comes to their fate. They know it’s over for the most part, and accept their fate as a low value male. Some try to cope with self improvement, or positive attitudes, but almost all of them accept on some level that very little positive female attention will come their way.

MGTOW is the polar opposite of this mindset. They’re still incels, or divorce raped boomer betabux, yet all of them think that they are the prize, and are dealing a serious blow to women by removing themselves from the dating market. They all imagine themselves to be debonair James Bond types, who voluntarily walked away from female attention, and now women suffer for it. The truth is all these men are not going their own way, they were sent their own way. “You can’t fire me, I quit!” basically.

MGTOWs cope by telling themselves that they are better and beyond women, that they don’t need them because they’re too-cool-for-school. MGTOWs act like they don’t need the one thing men were born to do, which is, be with women, sexually. They cope by posting pictures of food, alone. Going on trips, alone, or some other meaningless material possession that they cope with by telling themselves that having money is better than having a woman.

@JordanFirdBird2

imageEnjoying my Wendy’s in peace

Look at this Neckbeard-sent-his-own-way. He’s telling himself that his poverty fast food meal that he surely eats daily like the fat retard he is, is better than being with a woman. You can’t make this shit up.


@The-Thrillster

After 12hrs of grinding I'd expect a massive steak and an all night dick-sucking session.
Or, my favourite, just my peace and quiet.

“The-Thrillster” with the “peace and quiet” cope again, like not getting any pussy is somehow the greatest thing in the world because at least it means they can eat their microwave dinner in peace, with no woman to nag him.

Another man sent his own way. “Why do people think MGTOWS and incels are entitled again?”
Precisely because of garbage like this. He thinks that because he got up and went to work like normal people do everyday, a woman needs to be his personal sex slave and caretaker. This is exactly the sour grapes attitude I was talking about. “If I can’t have a woman be my personal chef and sex toy, I didn’t want her anyway!” Acting like he is so superior to everyone because he put in hours at work like most people everyday. The truth is if a woman even breathed in his direction , he would be the one cooking her dinner every night, he would become a slave to her for a chance of getting some pussy, even from a 3/10 landwhale. Calling MGTOWs delusional is an understatement.


Any MGTOWs reading this: stop pretending that you went your own way and voluntarily walked away from female affection. You’re just like us, low value males desperate for female validation, except you cope by telling yourself that you didn’t want them anyway, and it’s their loss now that you’re no longer available. Pretending you don’t want women and sex is like pretending you don’t want food, it is a biological instinct that cannot be overcome with shitty material possessions and pictures of sunsets and hiking trails. You all need to stop coping and just realize you were sent your own way just like us, and stop with your delusional edgy bullshit.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Taylor Swift's music videos are nothing less than vulgar, promiscuous, sensual, lewd and shameful. Very deceitfully, there is a popular consensus online that Taylor Swift is less sexualizing than Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus. That's like saying that Playboy magazine isn't as bad as Penthouse. Sexual sins are deadly! Colossians 3:5-7, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” Sensual public indecency is no trifle matter to God!!!

Furthermore, homosexuality is an awful sin according to God's Word:

Romans 1:24-27 and 32, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. ... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Taylor Swift is well-favored by the gay community for her open support, through her music, of the homosexual agenda. May I say, we ought to give up our wrongs in America, not our rights! God does not bless sin! God will not bless America while we are committing adultery, murdering our children, walking around naked at the beaches, recognizing homosexual marriages, worshipping materialism, cheating one another in business dealings, teaching our children that it's Ok for two men to sodomize each other and call it “love,” et cetera! We are a very sick nation!!!

Caamib #sexist blogger.com

bold is mine


Gally, I will reply to you though my goal isn't so much for you to read it, as you're a delusional idiot, but to make an intelligent reader, somebody who really wants to learn about this stuff, see why you're wrong and misrepresenting a lot of what we believe.

"Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. "

Jesus, what idiocy ! Of course they don't have nothing to do with it. You're right. You know what it has to do with? Actual improvement in male lives. Making it easier for healthy, reasonable males to get women. Which masturbation actively impedes by making them less motivated to do so. But the fuck would you know about any of that?

That's basically the reply to that entire paragraph of utter bs. Let's go on...


"You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). "

You have no idea why and how feminism comes about. Today's males have far less sexual choices than those in 1970s, when there was less feminism. Another thing that's a waste of time to discuss with you.


"How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?"

Which "junk science" are you rambling about? Feminists were never against masturbation, in fact they deem it to be an acceptable "solution" as their idea of a nightmare is whites having any kind of sex. But this is also something you're too stupid to get.

"You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades."

No, in fact you do. Your idea of robots replacing women in that women will not happen. And I'll tell you why. There's several reasons. First of all, the technology won't develop. In late 1998 people believed they'd have robots as servants and various other stuff by 2018. We don't. We have been stagnating technologically since around 2000 and your fantasies simply won't happen. Chances are that technology will decline, not improve with times.
Other issue is that there's still a lot of shame connected to using such technology.

But there's one reason that is much more crucial - men and women still want to be with each other. I still meet women 13-40 with my online ads, because modern Western women, as messed up as they are, still are looking for somebody to control them and own the shit of them, to put them in their place. You won't replace this and the male need to do so with any robots and virtual reality.

And there's a more important reason as well- why would we want to do so? Can you marry a robot, have a child with a robot? No? So what is the point, anyway? Why live in a virtual reality and knowing you'll never procreate? You think men like fschmidt, Nathan or myself would have kids if we did so? Why don't you just take drugs or kill yourself if you don't want to live in the real world?

"This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws."

No. This would be a blessing, which he understands full well as he's not as dumb as you are. It would make thousands of men get off their asses and take women.

"'I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage"

No, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy."

Standing up to delusional idiots like yourself, who pretend to be their friends (unlike the less perverse Norwegian state) is also quite brave. As I told you, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'."

No. Another thing you get completely wrong. An actual comparison would be "find me a cannabis legalization activist who actively promotes harmful chemical alternatives to pot that are known to destroy people's lives". And that is what masturbation is - a shade of actual sexuality, nothing. A dangerous tool that makes you complacent and unlikely to seek out actual sex. If you think being a male sexualist is about helping males jerk themselves off in dark rooms... Well, I'll just say that getting rid of that would be the first step to not being an idiot.

"We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws"

But feminist sex laws would collapse quickly if men stopped jerking off. Because, guess what? You are not a hebephile. There's no such thing. All sane men would sleep with 12 year-old girls and younger. And they'll be much more motivated to so when they don't jack off. When millions do it regularly, and they will when boys are discouraged from masturbating, it will be easy.

"Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??"

No, no, no, no.... Just no.

Everything wrong and stupid. The problem with the term incels is lookism and cultism, which didn't exist when I was in charge more, as I explained in my June article. This is directly connected to their takeover of the term after July 2016, Also, you miss the real point. Incels aren't meant to be popular or liked, of course feminists will hate them. The point is to promote actual solutions, which don't have to do with looks but are extremely contrary to feminism (finding non-feminist wives, rape etc). When men who call themselves incel seek actual solutions then the term will be seen more seriously. The idea that you will get a political solution in Western countries is pure idiocy. I just want to help men improve their everyday's lives. Politics is a waste of time and these countries like Norway will collapse like all countries which adopted their policies did.

It's your stupidity and idiocy and listening to mainstream media that you believe incel is some political term or whatever. It isn't. You're a fucking incel.

My goal is simply to improve the lives of men, not some great political solutions you dream of.

I already addressed the robot thing. Your assumptions about the state of technology and human nature are wrong.

If I chose robots instead of women I'd never have a daughter now, for example. Or several girlfriends or willing sexual partners, not to mention less willing ones.

Also, I'd like to address some of the shit you said before, some of which I painstakingly translated..

-Eivind's ideas on women being the owners of sex don't mean that men can't reject sex. They just mean women forcing it on them should be very lightly punishable. If I don't want chocolate that moment and somebody force feeds me some delicious chocolate am I some great victim? That's nonsense ! And Eivind did say that in cases of harsher violence these women should be charged with assault. But for giving somebody chocolate, which is how men see women's sexuality? Of course not. Another thing you'd know if you weren't a brainwashed house negro.

- No, male fetuses masturbating in wombs aren't a problem. Males usually develop first serious interest at women at around 12-14. Besides, their penises are usually too small to be properly masturbated before around 10-11-12, so they masturbate them the way clitorises are played with before that age (at least that is my experience). So such males don't develop penile sensitivity and can be successfully directed to have sex with rl girls of similar age of slightly younger/older. See how stupid and clueless you are?

Also, remember just one thing, Gally. Sperm doesn't ask. It doesn't ask if you're worthy enough, if you achieved this or that, if you have this or that level of consent or respect. It just impregnates. Think about that. So impregnate somebody. Do your role in the world.

I was attacked for saying I should have killed 12 year-old girls with C4 and burning rubber tires around their necks, but guess what? THIS IS WHAT MODERN WESTERN WOMEN WANT. What they don't want is anybody of IQ above that of a goldfish and any respect. This went down the drain from the first moment they got basic "rights" like suffrage, which are nothing but privileges that enable the destruction of society.

Oh, and another thing. Regarding islamic minded incels, you're completely wrong, as usual. Those in such communities who are most islamic minded, like myself or fschmidt, aren't even incel anymnore. Most actual incels, at least by my definition, are lookist fools who know nothing about history or wqmen's nature, want to have consensual sex (and nothing else) with dirty Western sluts who get raped regularly anyway and don' give a fuck about it, and then they're are angry when this fails.

Juan Rocha #fundie bbc.com

A young woman in an isolated part of Nicaragua has died a week after being tied up and allegedly thrown on a fire in an exorcism ritual.

Family members told local media that Vilma Trujillo had been attacked by four people led by a man who said he was an evangelical pastor.

Juan Rocha denied burning Mrs Trujillo, saying evil spirits had suspended her above the fire and then dropped her.

The woman, 25, was found by relatives hours later with severe burns.

The police have arrested Mr Rocha and a number of other people allegedly involved in the attack.

The victim's husband, Reynaldo Peralta Rodriguez, said the mother-of-two was taken inside a church last week when members thought she was possessed after allegedly trying to attack people with a machete, the Associated Press reports.

"It's unforgiveable what they did to us," he was quoted as saying.

"They killed my wife, the mother of my two little ones. Now what am I going to tell them?"

Pablo Cuevas, a spokesman for Nicaragua's Human Rights Commission, called on the government for firmer control over religious sects in the country.

"It is incredible that these things can happen today, there has to be a review by the authorities into all the different denominations and religions," he said. "We can't have things like this happening."

Women's Rights groups said the case was an example of fanaticism and misogyny.

Juanita Jimenez of the Autonomous Women's Movement (MAM) told local media that it was also the product of a lack of state presence in isolated parts of the country and an act of barbarity.

"Apart from the religious aspect, nothing justifies an act that is as cruel as burning a woman, putting her on a fire with the help of other people who you have used religion to manipulate," the activist said.

Bob Smith #sexist returnofkings.com

9 Secrets About Female Nature Told By A Hot Girl Dying Of Cancer

Many years ago, I became friends with a very hot blonde in her early 30’s who was dying of cancer. Due to her impending death, she decided that it was okay to relay a vast amount of inside information to me, regarding what women were really all about. She volunteered this information. I have never forgotten what she told me, and it has served me quite well over the years.

Here is a summary of the ten things she told me about the true nature of women, which were related to me over the span of a couple of weeks, shortly before her passing:

1. Women are exactly like little children

We are constantly poking, prodding and testing a man, in order to find out what his boundaries are. If he has no boundaries, we will destroy him, especially if he loves us. A man has to have boundaries, and he has to outline them precisely, and he has to force us to adhere to them with the power of his conviction and the power of his action. If he doesn’t do that, we will beat him over the head with his weaknesses (his lack of boundaries) until he breaks.

2. Women put up a false front about virtually everything

Our faces are fake (makeup), our hair is fake (dyed), our boobs are fake (some of us), everything about us is fake. Most especially when it comes to what is inside of us. We lie constantly, because we are far worse, character-wise, than even our closest friends or lovers will ever know, and we desperately fight to keep all of that hidden.

We are looking for our true daddies, basically – the idealized daddies that we never had – somebody who can see through all of our false fronts and call us out on our bullshit and put us in our place. The problem is, those type of men are very few and far between.

3. If a woman ever tells you, “If we don’t have trust, we don’t have anything,” she is either cheating on you or planning to cheat on you

There are no exceptions to this rule. We use that as cover, to try and make the man feel guilty for questioning our fidelity. What we are really saying here, is, “I will fuck whomever I want and you’d better keep your nose out of it or I’ll cut you off from my pussy and I’ll ruin your freaking life if you keep pressing the issue.” If we really cared about you, and if we really weren’t cheating on you or planning to cheat on you, we would tell you something like, “I am not cheating on you, I love you, and I would never do that. I don’t care if we have to stay up all night, for the next week, and go over every single shred of doubt that’s currently troubling you about this. I have nothing to hide, I would never cheat on you, and I don’t want you thinking these things about me. Please tell me exactly why you think I am cheating, point by point, and I will do anything and everything that I have to do to prove to you that I’m not cheating, in order to ease your worried mind.”

4. Women are much hornier than men

Vastly, exponentially, hornier than men. A woman will do just about anything, sexually speaking, so long as she is fairly certain she won’t get caught. For example, we will occasionally go out of town in order to rendezvous with a man we’ve been longing to fuck, and/or to have multiple sex partners in the same evening, and/or at the same time.

This is something that hot women do, most especially. In our minds, it is a natural desire, and a natural thing, and so long as nobody else finds out, it’s “game on”. Women are receptacles for cock, that’s how we have been biologically designed. Nothing feels better to us than being completely filled up with multiple penises, than being the center of sexual attention, than being the object of unbridled group lust. Since it’s something we can’t risk doing on our home turf (don’t shit where you eat), we have to think outside the box, in order to get our boxes completely satisfied. And you might find this shocking, but many women – many, many women – have sex with dogs on a routine basis. This is just one example of how insatiable we truly are.

I can see why you might not believe it, to which I say, look really hard at all of the women you know who have dogs. Look at women who have dogs whenever you see them out on the street, in the act of walking those dogs. Or at the park. You will notice that most of them have male dogs – the vast majority, in fact. This isn’t a coincidence. And look at all the female teachers who are exposed in the media for having sex with underage students. We have no self-control when it comes to sex – or anything else, for that matter. To our way of thinking, losing control is what makes sex great. Doing anything that is taboo is what makes sex great.

5. Women do not have female friends—they have female competition

We lie to our so-called female friends and pretend we are loyal and faithful to them, just like we do with the men in our lives. Secretly, we are jealous of each other, and we want all of the desirable things that other women have—most especially when it comes to our female friends’ things.

And we consider men to be things. If one of our friends has a hot man, we want him to want us. We will do everything we can to seduce him. Not because we really want him—we don’t really want anybody. We do it because we are rarely happy, and we don’t want our girlfriends to be happy, either, and we want to boost our own egos more than anything else.

And after we get him to fuck us, when our girlfriends find out that he has had sex with us, that’s when we finally get what we wanted in the first place. If we break up the previously happy couple, that’s fine, too. It’s all about our pussy, not hers. It’s about winning.

6. Women always lie about the number of sexual partners they’ve had

They also lie about not wanting men with large penises. If we told the actual truth about the number of different men and women we’ve slept with, and if we told the actual truth about our fervent desire for big dicks, our pool of potential suitors would shrink drastically, to the point where it would completely dry up. So we lie. Most often, we will claim that we’ve had between three and eight sexual partners in our lifetime. And, to our way of thinking, it isn’t a lie, because if we had five sexual partners last Saturday evening, and our man asks us how many sexual partners we have had, and we answer, “Five”, well, technically, we aren’t lying.

7. All women dislike themselves

And because we dislike ourselves, we fervently hate any man who doesn’t see through our bullshit. The more a man loves us, the more we hate him. The more he overlooks our sins, and the more he fails to see how corrupt we are, and the more he gives us the benefit of every single doubt – the more we despise him. We will escalate our bad behavior until we finally break him and he wakes up and realizes how worthless we are and what a fool he has been for believing in us.

8. Women want what they can’t have

We want a man whom we can’t have. We want a man who honestly doesn’t give a fuck about us, who doesn’t care if we come or go. That’s the kind of man we will pursue. Call them bad boys or call them whatever you want, that’s the kind of man we want – period. The kind of guy who will make us orgasm, crudely, and give us a huge sexual thrill in the bedroom, and then discard us like used toilet paper, and fuck our female friends afterwards, just because he can. (Just like we would do with his male friends.)

9. All women are masochists

And all hot women are narcissistic masochists. We hate it when things are going well, especially if they continue to go well for long periods of time. We know down deep that we are fucked-up and not worthy of anything that is truly good. So when things are going well in a relationship, we eventually sabotage it. We just can’t help ourselves in this regard.

We could have the greatest, most handsome, most well-hung husband in the world—a one-of-a-kind man who makes all of our girlfriends jealous; we could have the greatest children in the world, who are beautiful, well-behaved and ambitious; we could have the most enviable career imaginable; we could have all of the money and prestige and the truly good things in life, and we could repeatedly tell ourselves over and over, and believe, on the surface, that we would never cheat on our husbands. But down deep we know that it’s a lie. Because one day, we could walk into a grocery store, and some bad boy could whisper just the right combination of words in our ear, and the next thing you know, we’re at the Motel 6 getting it in the ass. That’s just how we are, and any woman—especially a hot woman—who says otherwise, is a liar.

Over the years, my deceased friend’s words have proven to be spot-on, in the vast majority of cases. And if they ring true from your own personal experience as well, then I am more than happy that I shared them with you here today. I know that my deceased friend would be thrilled to know that I have shared this information with the manosphere. After all, she used to be a hottie, and she’s now dead, and by giving me the inside scoop on her female competition, she continues to beat them—she continues to “win”—even from beyond the grave.

frozenrunner #fundie kiwifarms.net

How does using a transgender person's preferred pronouns fuck up someone's education? If a teacher is constantly misgendering a student then it's going to cause issues for said student. Teachers aren't there to cause students problems and have a say on someone's identity. If I work in retail I can't call a problem customer a cunt because it's against the store policy, misgendering was against the schools policy.

Who says a person is free to determine their own pronouns when it comes to something as basic as gender? Who says anyone should expect someone else use the "right" pronouns when addressing them? Who says demanding they do so is reasonable? Who says "misgendering" is even a valid concept?

With no other group of people do I have to check with each individual person before I talk to them to avoid committing a sin. So no, I'm not doing it for pushy, passive aggressive (or sometimes outright aggressive... very feminine, by the way) trannies no matter how miserable they claim it makes them. It is not the purpose of pronouns to help reinforce someone's self-image or their sense of identity. It never has been the purpose, and it's not going to become the purpose because a bunch of outliers with unusual conditions (and their self-righteous "allies") want it. Fuck that. And fuck trying to force it on society by forcing public servants to do it.

And if they just can't accept that, they can follow through on their constant self-pitying claims of abject misery and kill themselves. If it will stop them from constantly making everyone else's lives miserable, and if it will mean nobody's speech is being compelled, then the world wins out on that bargain. There are so few of them damn near nobody will notice if they're gone. They need to recognize that.

David and Louise Turpin #fundie npr.org

A Southern California couple are in custody after one of their daughters called 911 and led authorities to their home on Sunday. There, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department says it found 12 of the teen's siblings inside, including "several children shackled to their beds with chains and padlocks in dark and foul-smelling surroundings."

Of the 13 siblings living at the home in Perris, Calif., officials say six were under the age of 18. The siblings ranged in age from 2 years old to 29, and the daughter who sought help was 17 — though when law enforcement officers met with her, "she appeared to be only 10 years old and slightly emaciated."

"Deputies, when they arrived inside the house, noticed that the children were malnourished," Capt. Greg Fellows, commander of the Perris Sheriff's Station, said at a news conference Tuesday. "It was very dirty, and the conditions were horrific."

Law enforcement officers arrested their biological parents, David Allen Turpin, 57, and Louise Anna Turpin, 49. Each of the parents has been charged with nine counts of torture and 10 counts of child endangerment. Each is being held on $9 million bail.

"If you can imagine being 17 years old and appearing to be a 10-year-old, being chained to a bed, being malnourished and [having] injuries associated with that — I would call that torture," Fellows told reporters.

All 13 victims were hospitalized for examinations and treatment. Although the Riverside University Health System declined to describe the minors' condition, Corona Regional Medical Center CEO Mark Uffer said the seven adults are "stable and they're being fed."

"It's hard to think of them as adults when you first see them because they're small, and it's clear they're malnutritioned," Uffer said at Tuesday's news conference.

Fellows explained Tuesday that the parents, who have lived in Perris since approximately 2014, had been home-schooling their children. When confronted by the police Sunday — according to the statement released Monday — "the parents were unable to immediately provide a logical reason why their children were restrained in that manner."

"It seemed that the mother was perplexed as to why we were at that residence," Fellows said. He added that law enforcement "had no prior contacts at that residence regarding any allegations of child abuse or neglect."

David Turpin's parents, James and Betty Turpin of West Virginia, told ABC News that they were "surprised and shocked" at the allegations because their son and daughter-in-law were "a good Christian family." They said they had not seen the family since visiting California four or five years ago.

The Los Angeles Times, citing public records, reports that the couple had moved to California from Texas several years ago and that they had declared bankruptcy twice.

Ivan Trahan, a lawyer who had represented the couple in their most recent bankruptcy filing, in 2011, was quoted by the Times as saying that the Turpins seemed like "very nice people who spoke highly of their children" but who had fallen into financial problems.

Trahan said David Turpin had worked as an engineer for Northrop Grumman. A spokesman for the defense contractor confirmed to the Times that he was employed there until 2010.

However, Kimberly Milligan, 50, who lives across the street, was quoted by the newspaper as saying that when she first moved in she saw a woman outside the house with an infant, but eventually stopped seeing the child. Over the years, Milligan said, she would occasionally see three children who looked like preteens.

"I thought the kids were home-schooled," she said. "You know something is off, but you don't want to think bad of people."

Considering the proximity of the houses, Milligan questioned aloud: "How did no one see anything?"

Milligan was quoted by Reuters as saying that two years ago around Christmas she saw three of the older Turpin children outside and complimented them on a Nativity scene outside their house. She said they "froze [as] if by doing so they could become invisible."

"Twenty-year-olds never act like that," she told the news agency. "They didn't want to have a social conversation."

Still, authorities lauded the bravery displayed by the 17-year-old daughter in calling attention to the situation Sunday.

"I appreciate the courage that this juvenile had," Fellows said Tuesday, "to escape that house and get out there and report this to law enforcement."

Ethan Huff #wingnut #transphobia #sexist naturalnews.com

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is in the throes of celebrating Christina Koch, who’s become the latest woman astronaut to spend the longest time in space. But what’s the point of celebrating her achievement now that a biological man who thinks he’s a “woman” can just sweep on in and claim the new record?

Koch reportedly spent 289 days in space during a recent extraterrestrial excursion, and is expected to spend a total of 328 days in orbit by the time she treks back to Earth. But, again, what is NASA going to do once a “transgender” astronaut comes along to steal the top prize for longest time spent in space by a “female?”

We’re already seeing this kind of thing in women’s sports, as fake females smash records while leaving real females in the dust. Where does it all end, and do actual females stand a chance at winning anything ever again in this new LGBTQ “paradise” we’re all being forced to accept?

A female high school athlete from New England recently spoke out about how she lost a regional track meet to two transgender “females” who stole the title from her due to their size and strength, both of which were reflective of their biological maleness.

“Her arms were much more defined than the average girl’s and same with her legs, but she had long hair, long braided hair, and I didn’t think much of it, and then I watched the race and I saw that this girl was blowing away the competitors, and I thought, ‘Hey, this isn’t right, this usually doesn’t happen,'” this athlete, Selina Soule, is quoted as saying.

For all she knows, Koch could soon encounter the same thing if some transgender astronaut comes along and decides, “I’m going to steal the record for the longest time spent in space by a woman” – and there’s nothing Koch will be able to do about it because any objection on her part will be seen as exemplifying “transphobia.”

Transgenders ruin everything, don’t they?
Koch is quoted as saying that she hopes someone out there will surpass her record as soon as possible “because that means that we’re continuing to push the boundaries.” But our guess is that she doesn’t hope a biological man dressed up as a woman will be the one to “push the boundaries” – though we could be wrong on that.

We haven’t actually spoken to Koch about any of this, but chances are the concept isn’t even on her radar. Heck, most rational Americans probably still aren’t conceiving of the fact that all of these new-wave transgenders are “pushing the boundaries” every day to see just how much perversion they can get away with in the name of “progress.”

Keep an eye on this because there’s certain to be at least one gender-confused man claiming to be a “woman” who, at some point, will attempt to become the first fake female to spend the longest amount of time in space, eclipsing Koch’s accomplishment faster than you can shout out the word “tolerance.”

“I’m waiting for the headline about the longest LGBTQ spacewalk or longest non-binary POC (people of color) rover deployment,” joked one Breitbart News commenter in response to this story.

“I’m curious when the first transgender black male will give birth (with sperm from a Muslim transgender Asian female) to a non-binary gender fluid interracial child who is accepting of all races, religions and creeds,” joked another. “In space

David J. Stewart #sexist #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

WOMEN DON'T BELONG IN THE MILITARY. You've got a bunch of men without a wife, tempted by any woman in their midst, and for a young woman to enroll into the military is asking for trouble! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. America is a big mess today, because the ruling Luciferian powers behind the subversion of our society are doing everything they can to confuse, corrupt and destroy marriages and families. I am not going to go as far as to say women get what they deserve if they get burned or raped by male peers in the military, BUT THEY DO GET WHAT THEY ASKED FOR! No one deserves to be sexually assaulted, no one! But you get what you asked for, like Jessica Lynch, if you place yourself into harm's way. WOMEN DON'T BELONG IN THE MILITARY. A woman distracts men from their work. Men are attracted by sight. Men desire sex, much more so than women on average. For a woman to place herself in the midst of a bunch of lustful men is the epitome of stupidity! These dumb women demand for the law to protect them which it cannot do all the time. Men are going to be men, and men are sinners! Women will continue to be sexually harassed, raped and abused in the military, especially in this wicked characterless generation that has no fear of God. WOMEN DON'T BELONG IN THE MILITARY, THEY BELONG MARRIED, AT HOME HAVING BABIES AND PREPARING DINNER! As America changes its core values, laughing at the idea that a woman's place is in the home, our society is going to total moral ruin (homosexuality, abortion, nudity, substance abuse, suicide, theft, hatred, gender confusion and sexual immorality). WOMEN DON'T BELONG IN THE MILITARY.

The Trump administration #fundie theguardian.com

Trump administration trying to define transgender out of existence – report

The Trump administration is attempting to strip transgender people of official recognition by creating a narrow definition of gender as being only male or female and unchangeable once determined at birth, the New York Times reported.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has undertaken an effort across several departments to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex, the Times said, citing a government memo.

That definition would be as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals a person is born with, the Times reported.

Such an interpretation would reverse the expansion of transgender rights that took place under President Barack Obama.

It would also set back aspirations for tolerance and equality among the estimated 0.7% of the population that identifies as transgender. Most transgender people live with a profound sense that the gender assigned to them at birth was wrong and transition to the opposite sex. Others live a non-binary or gender-fluid life.

A HHS spokeswoman declined to comment on what she called “allegedly leaked documents” but cited a ruling by a conservative US district judge as a guide to transgender policy.

In Texas in 2016, ruling on a challenge to one aspect of the Affordable Care Act, judge Reed O’Connor found there was no protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

A leading transgender advocate called the government’s reported action a “super aggressive, dismissive, dangerous move”.

“They are saying we don’t exist,” said Mara Keisling, director of the National Center for Transgender Rights.

The Obama administration enacted regulations and followed court rulings that protected transgender people from discrimination, upsetting religious conservatives.

The Trump administration has sought to ban transgender people from military service and rescinded guidance to public schools recommending that transgender students be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

A draft of the Trump administration memo says gender should be determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable”, the memo says, according to the Times.

Medical science seeking to explain what makes people transgender is in its infancy. Psychiatrists no longer consider being transgender a disorder and several US courts have found the Obama interpretation of protecting transgender people against discrimination to be sound.

But the Trump administration has chosen to abide by the ruling of O’Connor, the Times said.

“The court order remains in full force and effect today and HHS is abiding by it as we continue to review the issue,” Roger Severino, director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement.

Filippovna #fundie therightstuff.biz

Be the Chad You Wish To See in the World

Marrying and having kids is one of the most arduous challenges our generation must face. Women are rushing to the edge of the cliff of their youth in droves, and falling to their ruin with a splatter at the bottom of their thirties, covered in bodily fluids, cellulite, and tattoos. Young men are seriously contemplating whether cartoons can be girlfriends, while the abandonment of monogamy and the tremendous risks of dating and marriage keep all but the top stratum of men, the Chads, from even chancing a relationship.

It is no wonder the word cuck hits such a nerve for so many. With divorce being initiated three times as often by women, resulting in her being awarded the children, and most of his income and his assets going towards her new family, the similarities are staggering. Even finding a marriageable woman comes with the high likelihood of her having a plethora of previous partners, men she bedded for passion and for fun, and having settled when she realized she needed to cash in her assets before it was too late.

Add to that the impending threat of demographic displacement, where White men have been granted the privilege of supporting other men’s families, as they are systematically bred out of existence, and it paints a picture of utter defeat to anyone who wishes to have a family of his own.

This is also why Chad receives so much bitterness and envy from the everyman. The highest caste of sexual fitness, Chad is a symbol of what most cannot have: access to the best women. Chad is stronger, cooler, more interesting, and most importantly, the only type of person impervious to many of the pitfalls of the sexual marketplace.

There have been varied approaches to this problem. One is for a man to go his own way, rejecting women altogether, and deciding to not play the game if the outcome is likely losing. The problem with that is he does not get to reproduce. Another approach is to look toward a certain uprising, hoping that sexual disenfranchisement reaches maximum capacity within one’s lifetime, with the multitudes of six-and-unders overhauling the status quo entirely, and sending women back in time, back to the kitchen, while raising monuments and statues which read: THE INSIDIOUS VAGINAL JEW - NEVER FORGET.

The problem, again, is that they will likely not get to reproduce. And even if they do, the minefield of modern marriage is a gamble that makes shooting up a sorority house look like an appealing way to leave the world in comparison. The only way to win, it seems, is to become Chad.

Chad is not an individual, but an archetype latent within all men, not any specific mould or make, but rather characterized by how victorious he is in winning the attention of women. He is the superman of the principal imperative in life, and our relationship to him is like a Rorschach test for how close one is to realizing his potential--anything from jealousy, to disdain, to ambition. He is the sexual Volksgeist of our generation, and much like the literary hero, represents the psychological and physical battle of the most rudimentary of life’s quests.

There is no anguish and resentment reserved for any type of man as there is to Chad. Few Wojaks cry bitterly when contemplating the disheveled genius or the legacy of the celibate inventor. As comforting as denial would be, having access to women of the highest quality and quantity is supremely important.

This means that in order to be a Chad, a man must be appealing to the nature of women. The same creatures who wear fishnets and lingerie in public holding signs that say, “STILL NOT ASKING FOR IT“ are the ones qualifying a man’s SMV, not other men. If the majority of women consider a man a 4 out of 10, a 4 he is. This is a pill so black it burns down its own neighbourhood for a new pair of Jordans.

What women want in a man is difficult to discern, as what women say they want and what women actually want are not just different but contradictory, but it can easily be defined as masculine, or in other words, useful to women.

To men, women are primarily sexual objects. An ideal woman is beautiful, fertile, sensual, and pleasant. This is for good reason, as the other qualities of a woman are generally unexceptional. She is physically weak, her intelligence tends towards the mean, and in most cases anything aside from giving birth, men can do better. A woman has little else to bring to the table on a reproductive level than her looks and fecundity. Men must fulfill a much greater range of qualifications in order to impress a woman.

To women, men are kind of like tools. This is why one of their most commonly used phrases in online dating in 'Looking For' is “can fix anything”. Women are social cultivators of the male ability to subvert the material world, and can rarely advance their social standing in life without riding on the back of a capable man. Women coast on the status and power of men, men do all the work, and women reward men with what they do as sex objects, mainly acquiesce, sometimes enthusiastically.

Chad is, in a way, a multi-purpose tool. He may be funny, goal-oriented, successful, wealthy, or even under 6’2. But he is some combination of traits that women find useful, and carry the potential to help propel her social standing in some way. The antithesis to Chad, then, is a man who is useless. Look to the behaviour of teenage girls for a demonstration of the uncivilized, uncensored reaction to a man who is seen as useless--revulsion, cruelty, or fear, sometimes even at a simple hello. To women, these men aren’t just undesirable people, they may not even be men, or even human.

An interesting study to highlight this point is "Rape From Afar: Men Exposing to Women and Children," in which an unwanted display from a man even in the form of flashing can "have a significant impact on their lives and can be interpreted...he could also rape or murder them." A lesser man even showing arousal in a woman’s general vicinity can make a woman perceive the threat of rape or death.

There are very few perks of being merely a mediocre man, either. He may get to marry and reproduce if he is lucky. He will spend the entire relationship being tested ruthlessly, on the off chance he will lose his grip and give her an excuse to find someone else who is more useful. Many women will not hesitate to climb onto the back of a great man, only to stand on his shoulders and climb higher once the opportunity arises. This is not a comforting idea, but such is the fate of the average man.

Feminist influence in government has proven nothing more than the fact that women will act like women even in circumstances where they are permitted to act like men. Social degeneration leading up to and caused by female-led policy, just like the dating scene, has become much like a harem, as big daddy government coerces resources from men and families and makes it rain on his loyal voter base.

Being an accomplished or honourable man by the standards of men has little real bearing on the realities of the current year’s sexual marketplace. We are in a dysgenic age in which the same demographic of people taking the feel-good flamethrower of uncontrolled third world immigration to Europe are the ones arbitrating who gets to reproduce. Men with valuable things to offer the next generation are being pushed out of the gene pool, or out of the lives of their own children. Counteracting this is an incredible feat of overcoming the odds, but the other options are even more grave.

Chad is the very embodiment of overcoming the odds. He may not have done so on purpose, or worked very hard for it, but he has succeeded in making women believe that he has value to offer them. Whether we like it or not, Chad is the hero of the story of our modern era. He wins. Any approach to this archetype outside of aspiration and the will to power is self-defeating. We are living in a dystopian sci-fi novel, and just like in any story, the jealous foil who attempts to murder the hero always loses.

metabuxx #conspiracy #sexist incels.co

[Based] Female G-spot is a myth created by feminists

The whole myth that the G-spot lies just 3-4 inches inside the vagina and dicks smaller than 5 inches are enough to pleasure foids was created by feminists in the 70's to brainwash men with small dicks and trick them into supporting feminism. Those men had already lost all hopes of getting laid and a little bit of assurance from those misandrists worked like magic. Those simps were the first generation of male feminists who stooped down to their lowest level to get laid.

They even agreed to hold signs which said "All men are dogs and rapists" and "God is a woman". Those men had no idea about female anatomy and feminists did an excellent job in deluding them. They told that there is a spot in the vagina which could be stimulated even by dicks smaller than 5 inches and they could get laid if they helped in making the world a gynocentric society. Those cucks gladly agreed and joined them which made the feminist movement a bigger success than it already was. And needless to say those men never got laid.

Even today foids are holding on to this myth and deluding beta men to make grand gestures for them. If men with small dicks knew the truth then 90% of male population will stop pursuing women and foids can't afford that. They survive on the validation and money of their beta orbiters. All the studies which say that men are more concerned about their size more than foids is a grand deception. Foids care about penis size much more than anyone. That's the reason why they love Tyrones with 10+ inch penis which can ram their cervix.

(Emphasis original)

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.hr

Beware of sex-negative MRAs
A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

OpinionGenerator #fundie reddit.com


In my experience (psychology studies, published research, own experiences and layman observation) one important aspect is that a 15-year old person has not at all the same means to use a against his/hers 15-year old victim as a 25 year old. Just in terms of average physical strength, possibility to remove the victim from his/hers surroundings by car as well as authority.

Alright, but we're talking about coercion at this point. I'm not arguing that ANYbody should be able to intimidate anybody this way. You're making the mistake of assuming an adult having sex with a minor necessarily involves this. Even if it might be more common in these situations, you're still guilty of ageism.

People don't like to be tricked. If someone gives 10$ to someone else, who asks for it for a bus ride or food, this someone will feel betrayed and/or angry if he/she finds out that the person he/she gave those 10$ used them for drugs instead. It doesn't change anything, they are 10$ poorer and the choice made by the other person doesn't change that. But still a lot of people care.

Agreed, but those people don't go to prison for a long time and their lives aren't ruined by being marked as a sex offender for life.

If your standard is simply that people are being deceived, then you're opening the doors to a ton of new regulations. It has to be something substantial.

In other words, she was playing a game half blind not being aware of all the rules, possibilities and her own rights. Also applies the other way around.

This is not exclusive to older people with younger people though. Should a 30-year old who does this to somebody his age go to prison for using a girl under false pretenses? Seriously, I think if you really understand what we're talking about, it's punishing people for breaking peoples' hearts. That's not a legal matter, that's just ordinary drama.

18 isn't a magic number and the age of consent isn't same in all countries. 25 wouldn't be a bad idea. Or a maturity test. However, I suppose 18 is seen as good enough approximation.

I say we go with a maturity test since age really isn't the issue is it? Most people here are bringing up maturity, experience and reason... why not simply just test for those things? That'd make a lot more sense for other things as well (e.g., driver's license, ability to drink).


A 25 year old and a 15 year old are not on equal footing when it comes to experience, authority, and power

True, but could you apply that to the questions that I asked?

Even when we talk about authority and power, if a 25 year old had sex with a 15-year old without utilizing that, why would it be an issue?

A 25 year old automatically has more power and authority. You can't pretend it doesn't exist.


I'm not pretending it doesn't exist, I'm asking why we assume it's at play.

Or let's look at it another way...

If I'm a super-genius at the age of 25 (let's say I have an IQ of 200) and I use that genius to manipulate a girl of the same age who is below average intelligence (we won't go so far as to say mentally challenged to avoid that conversation), do I deserve to go to prison and be marked as a sexual offender for the rest of my life?


I think I agree with you, but it's a very fuzzy, grey area that I think has to be handled with caution, because it can go in a very ugly direction.

OpinionGenerator • 4y
I agree, but I think the "ugly direction" of which you speak is still outside what we're talking about. Even the OP basically admitted to physical intimidation to make her point, but that's something that is ALWAYS punishable no matter what age you are... it's kind of a cheap way to make her point.

I think the line should definitely be AFTER puberty starts to kick in and past the age of when we teach sex ed, but after that, I don't think it makes sense to punish people when their partner is seeking sex. When I was 13 (actually younger than that TBH), I was ready to go and it'd be a shame to think the women I was fantasizing over would be seen as manipulative for giving me what I wanted at the time.

Again, I think this has to do with society's views of sex. When a guy gets laid, it's awesome. When a girl gets laid, it's a strike and after she's had X amount of those, she's a slut. Why is it that men rarely go through this when they have sex at an early age? Because they're not shamed like women are.

JoeMan-A #fundie joeman-a.deviantart.com

[Title: I refuse (Fight the power)]

Note: If you do not agree with this post or hate it to your most full extent remember that an opinion is an OPINION, so don't be TOO rude.

Hello everyone out there and those who may be concerned with this picture. Lately I've been seeing alot I mean "alot" of rainbow flags appearing around face book. So I decided to join in on my own terms. Let it be known as my way of "coming out of the closet" to tell every one that I OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE.

It sounds crazy that the "artist"; one who thinks of colors and concepts all the time would be the one to oppose. And yes as the poster in the pic says as quote "I REFUSE" while it burns with a un-moving passion, as the PRESSURE OF SOCIETY and the PRO GAY MEDIA try to weigh me down. The words of ignorance being stabbed into me such as HATER or HOMOPHOBE two words that are always derived to tell one to GIVE UP. Trying to force me to say its okay to be gay. But do not worry I have my acceptions. I am okay with gay people I just don't appreciate their acts, and gay marriage being one to point fingers to. Sure you people may have had your victory in that category of "man made marriage" but since when do people especially judges have the rights to go and alter marriage an act that is older than politics its self. Even before the time period of Common era marriage was defined as the act of a man and woman becoming one. Not a man and another man nor a woman with another woman. To say that this is on of your (as many people say) new norms, I can most for certainly say. NO it is not.

So I conclude this with do what you want, and continue with your own ways of taking in corrupt media and silver tongues. And try to take me down because I'm not moving, no matter if you slash and claw at my arms or slit my throat I will continue to stand and hold this board. Because my opinion counts because I OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE.

as I stand alone I AM THE NEW 1%!

GoffSystemQB & 18XRay #sexist incels.co

RE: [SuicideFuel] How the fuck does this not SCREAM alarm bells in mainstream media??

(GoffSystemQB)

She swiped on 0.0094% of men.....

Jesus fucking Christ.....

Jesus

Sweet

Mary mother of Joseph

What is this fuckery..... I’m going to suicide fuck.....

JUST BE CONFIDENT BRO!!!! BE IN THE TOP 99.99th PERCENTILE OF LOOKS

They do not care about men only Chads. Male disposability theory. Some politician joked about wanting more white men to kill themselves last week and no consequences.

In America?

Actually it was a guest at a political event I misspoke and thought it was a politician. Anyways everyone in the audience laughed at the joke. It didn't get any outrage till Trump retweeted it. Nobody cares about men and they do not even hide it.

Edit: Also imagine if this person was an "incel" spreading the blackpill. He would be fired from his job and have his entire life ruined. Yet joke about wanting more white men to kill themselves and nothing happens to you.

A good joke from her:
"svvafflesOC: 12.1k points · 4 months ago¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't wanna waste my or other peoples time. I could cast a much wider net and net more matches, I did swipe left on handsome men that surely have no problem meeting women. But I'm after a deep connection, not just matches for ego's sake."

Then she fished validation on reddit uploading a couple of nsfw selfies.

She's after a deep connection. And only 0.0094% men pass that preselection. Jfl. It's beyond over.

"Tinder is just a hookup app" is a massive cope.

(18XRay)

Relative poverty will cause depression on a grand scale, social media is only facilitating this on an extreme proportion. Supply/Demand. Women are just apart of economics, like they've always been, but now they control the supply while men due to biological dispositions are prone to extensive demand. What do you get? Something on par with a drug dealer, every single woman is a drug dealer, but she hands out the sweet sweet drug of dopamine and "affection". REVOLT!

Christian Answers #fundie christiananswers.net

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

Many homosexuals’ claim that…

They are made that way.

Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else’s business.

Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said…

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer’s X-chromosome research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results.”6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior and the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17).

But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman’s role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising, God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that “homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.”1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that “children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity.”6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Nobody else’s business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Equally valid?

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g., 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g,. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).”9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty, etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (verse 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ‘sodomy.’

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as “Jonathan loved David” (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41).11

However, “David’s love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other Scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

[See: What does the Bible say about same sex marriages? Answer]

Punishment

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Hope

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can’t help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.

Conclusion

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

ExaltGod #fundie exaltgod.deviantart.com

Homosexuals say: It's wrong for Christians to force their definition of marriage on us. And then they say: Our definition of marriage should be forced on you.

Saw the quote on facebook.
----------------------------------

Sodomites get really upset about Christians trying to "force" our definition of marriage on them.
But then they turn right around and demand that everyone accept their warped definition of "marriage"!


Genesis 2:23-24
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men working that which is unseemly,
and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:4-5
"And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh?"

1 Timothy 1:9-10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,
for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind,
for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons,
and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"


How to get saved: exaltgod.deviantart.com/art/Sa…
-----------------------
NOTE: I do not support the murder, torture, enslavement, etc of sodomites.

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

The ages of women and their characteristics and experiences at these ages are as follows.

Age 18

According to Heartiste, "This is the age — from teenager to mid-20s — when a woman is in her nubile prime. Physically and emotionally she is at her horniest, her most feminine, and, not coincidentally, her most discriminating. She’s on the prowl for an alpha male, and specifically for a charming jerkboy whose devil-may-care attitude speaks so forcefully to her deep desire to submit to a top tier man with limitless lover options."

He also notes, "Hard to believe, but it is often easier to bed a very young woman than an older woman, if you are an older man. This is because 20-40% of women are specifically attracted to older men. It is hard-wired in them, and this hard-wiring can be reinforced by poor family upbringing resulting from divorce of parents or absentee fathers. Single moms are the greatest source of future generations of slutty daughters the world has ever known. . . . You can bang an 18-21 year old surprisingly quickly because they have little ASD (anti-slut defense). This is because they do not have the long history of sluttiness common to older women which needs to be rationalized away by posturing as a paragon of chaste virtue. A young woman simply won’t perceive sex with you as an admission of sluttiness. She is innocent to herself as well as to you."[1]

Roosh notes, "She is child-like and mostly intolerable. Her speech sounds like another language. She will only have sex when completely trashed, and has few redeeming qualities beyond her body. Says a lot of things that make you think you’re wasting your time. Best game to use: jealousy."[2]

Age 21

Hank Moody notes that a girl 21-25 "appreciates that I'm not writing her odes about my undying love and affection, and seem to want to keep things casual. They're getting hit up at every angle, and they're confused about whether they want to fuck the bartender or the lawyer. Then they realize they can do both with little ramification. I like being seen around town with them. Horrible conversationalists, and I have to dumb down my text messaging. Most of their texts are 'lol ur funny..' Society has told these girls that they can be total whores with no consequences, and eventually some good looking rich guy will scoop them up."[3]

Age 22

The four-year carnival called college is coming to a close. During this time, she’s enjoyed the absolute ride of her life: non-stop parties (as a true Carousel rider), trips, and gorging herself on the buffet of cock available to an American college girl—without the uncomfortable social stigmas of generations past. At a time where previous generations of women were getting nervous if they hadn’t snared a husband, today’s girl is “just getting started.” At this age, today’s girl is irretrievably drunk on her power. Any cautionary advice will be greeted with hubristic ridicule and disbelief.

Age 23

Roissy notes, "The 23-27 year old feels she is at her attractiveness peak, despite her peak having passed a few years earlier. This is because she is surrounded by many more high status men than she was while in college (or working at the Piggly Wiggly) who are expressing sexual interest in her. This social dynamic will work to inflate her ego beyond the bounds of her actual beauty ranking."[1]

Age 25

The first alerts—which go unheeded—that this ride isn’t forever start to rear their heads. The combination of a few harsh pump-and-dumps, and the knowledge that some of her smarter friends are getting hitched, start to impart a hard edge on her personality. Still, with ample beauty left over, most girls will continue to draw from the bank account with impunity. Heartiste writes, "During this age window — late 20s to late 30s — a woman is powerfully aware of the beginning of decline in her number one asset: her beauty. Physically, she is noticing small changes in herself — the first nascent signs of decay — that, assessed from a distance relative to womanhood as a whole aren’t so horrifying, but compared to what she was herself just a few years earlier will split her id wide open. Urgency compels her (if she’s psychologically healthy) to escape the single lady lookatme scene and start seriously buckling down to achieve the goal of snagging a man who will commit to her and, hopefully, help her become part of a family. Naturally, this pressure to settle limits her options and the longer she waits, the more her “Mr. Right” will deviate from the Mr. Right of her teenage dreams."

According to Roosh, "After you wear the t-shirt a couple of times, the fabric loses elasticity. You no longer get excited when wearing it because people have already seen you in it. Your eye starts to wander on new t-shirts (25-29 years old)." Also, according to Roosh's T-shirt analogy, "When you leave the loaf out, it gets a little hard. You have to heat it up with a toaster first, but it still won’t taste fresh. (25-29 years old)"

Roosh also writes, "single women over 25 are emotionally damaged in some way, are alpha widowed, or are professional daters who are incapable of making the proper relationship sacrifices."[4]

Age 26

Hank Moody notes that a girl 26-30 is "Still hot enough to be seen around town with, but they start throwing serious girlfriend vibes - particularly public displays of affection. Sex is practically thrown at you after a few months of dating. You're that good looking rich guy who is going to scoop them up. They know the biological clock is ticking fast, and their family is pushing them to 'settle down.'"

Age 27

Rollo notes, "By the age of 27 women’s SMV decline has begun in earnest. That isn’t to say that women can’t remain stunningly attractive and vivacious in their post-peak years, but comparative to the next crop of 22-23 year olds, the decline progressively becomes more evident. Competition for hypergamously suitable mates becomes more intense with each passing year. The age’s between 27 and 30 are subliminally the most stressful for women as the realization sinks in that they must trade their ‘party years’ short term mating protocol for a long term provisioning strategy."[5]

Age 28

Roissy notes, "28-30 year olds are a mixed bunch. Some are riding a wave of career and social success that has nowhere to go but down, and their bloated egos reflect that. Others, less conventionally successful, are emotionally frazzled by the disappearing act of their heady youth and by the intractability of their singledom. You will find some of the cuntiest, and sweetest, girls in this age range."[1]

Age 29

After repeated pressings of the snooze button, it starts getting harder to ignore the clangor of the alarm clock. Having gotten her fill on the party lifestyle—and starting to feel, if not fully understand, the diminished effectiveness of her fading looks—she declares herself “ready to settle down.” Regrettably, the combination of having very little beauty-capital remaining and impossibly high standards—the product of years of enjoying the high life at the expense of her future solvency—will conspire to keep her single.

Age 30

According to Roosh, "If you leave the bread out for too long, mold develops. You can cut away the mold, toast the bread, and still be able to eat it, but you won’t enjoy it. You’d have to be starving. (30-34 years old)"

Hank Moody notes that a girl 30-36 "Is either divorced or has never been married for a reason. Anthropomorphizes their dog or cat. Struggles with depression issues. Sex is thrown at you. They know that the good looking rich guy is never going to come, and you're simply here for sex and conversation. At this point they would settle for almost any beta willing to commit and risk a geriatric pregnancy."

Heartiste notes that "a man marrying an over-30 woman is investing everything he has in a rapidly depreciating pleasure provider that has already lost a lot of its aesthetic value."[6]

The over-30 woman has likely amassed an impressive knob count. When you marry a 30+ woman, you’re marrying her 30+ cockas. Hope you like getting phantom cucked! As magically prehensile as your penis may be, she’ll never look up to it in cross-eyed awe like she did with her first cock when she was younger, hotter, tighter, and inexperienced.

The over-30 woman is bitter from a wasted prime spent on failed relationships she hoped would lead to marriage. Now that you’re marrying her, she should be grateful, but she's not. . . . .

There’s another, subtle, reason to refuse the wedded diss of marrying the over-30 woman. Now, naturally, if you marry an under-30 woman, the day will come, ostensibly, that she’ll be your over-30 wife. But you’ll have something that chagrined men who married women on the cusp of sagging cups don’t have: Years of very fond, very monopolized, very supple memories. If you maritally snag a 21-year-old minx and occupy her sugar walls for the next ten years, the spermatomically bonded cervix-splattered glue of all those splendid tumbles of passion accrue into something larger than the sum of your individuated speckles. All that young woman heat, heat which will never be replicated with the older version of your wife, captures into limbic amber a network of interlocked, superconductive emotions with the power to sustain lovingrapture a good ways past the poignantly brief era of peak wife ripeness, onward into the elevator muzak era of bland marital inertia (50 years, plus or minus).

You marry an over-30 woman and you’re left grasping at a grease truck menu of curdled, pear-shaped memories and wrinkled recollections for sustenance.

According to trav777, "a woman at 31 is looking for a marriage and kid as a BUCKET LIST ITEM. She is not looking for a husband or a partner or obligations. If she were into that more than herself, she’d have landed a decent man 10 years prior."

Relampago Furioso notes that at 30, the thousand cock stare often develops.[7]

Age 31

Roissy notes:[1]

In some ways, women in the 31-34 age range are the toughest broads to game. (By “toughest”, it is meant “most time consuming”.) It’s counterintuitive, yes, but there are factors at work besides her declining beauty which mitigate against the easy, quick lay. For one, it is obviously harder to meet single 31-34 year old women than it is to meet single younger women. Marriage is still a pussy-limiting force to contend with for the inveterate womanizer, but Chateau apprentices are hard at work battling the scourge of mating market disturbances caused by the grinding and churning of the marriage machine.

But the bigger reason 31-34 year olds are harder to game than any other age group of women has to do with the wicked nexus of entitlement and self-preservation that occurs at this age in women. When you combine a disproportionate sense of entitlement fueled by years of feminism, steady paychecks and promotions, and cheerleading gay boyfriends with suspicions of every man’s motives and a terrible anxiety of being used for a sexual fling sans marriage proposal, you get a venom-spitting malevolent demoness on guard against anything she might perceive as less than total subjugation to her craving for incessant flattery and princess pedestaling.

Age 32

The magical years are officially gone, and the long descent to complete invisibility to the opposite sex is well underway. Thanks to social programming (e.g., Sex in the City and the myth that “a woman’s sexual prime is in her 30s”), she can rationalize that her “Mr. Right” will arrive any minute. However, she’s likely to become little more than a second- or third-stringer in a player’s long roster of options. A few of these women will get bailed out by blue-pill betas, who still buy into the marriage trap, and don’t realize (or care) they’re buying a used car with the odometer rolled back. But this marriage is almost certainly doomed to divorce-failure, since nothing can ever compete with her 15-year prime-time binge. She will be nagged by dissatisfaction the moment her last party–her wedding–ends.

She enjoyed the Sweet 15, but she’ll enjoy little more.

GBFM writes that with 32-year-olds, it's necessary to get a "leaf-blower to get all the dust off".

Age 35

According to Roosh's T-shirt analogy, "Eventually, holes develop in the fabric. It has been used too many times. Now it is only good to clean the toilet bowl before finally being placed in the trash. (35 and up)." Also, according to his bread analogy, "If you leave it for even longer, mold takes over and completely destroys the bread. There is no way to excise the toxic portions. You must throw it away before the mold makes you sick. (35 and up)" Relampago writes:[8]

Women “expire” at age 35 for numerous reasons. Their fertility declines sharply at this age. Their beauty declines, no matter how much makeup they cake on. If not already married to her, from this moment forward she offers nothing to a partner but a well-used piece of anatomy and a manipulative, even predatory disposition towards men and their finances.

The expiration date may fluctuate around age 35 for a couple of reasons, i.e. good genetics or a sweet personality (usually being faked) but this age is a good baseline for the “expiration date” for females.

Age 40

Heartiste writes, "The final romantic life cycle for women (ages 40-death), this stage is the longest and, sadly from the perspective of one who adores women when they are at their most womanish, the dreariest, though it does offer as consolation a tranquilizing serenity that can safely usher a woman through her middle years without resort to painkillers. In this cycle, a woman still harbors those tingles for the alpha jerk, but they are sufficiently suppressed by biomechanic winding-down and stone cold circumstance — her wilted bloom — to allow the flourishing of her other female needs. Those other needs center around her desire to a) not be abandoned to a cold cruel sexual market and b) enjoy at least facsimiles of reciprocal love so that she does not feel abandoned within her relationship."

Adam Hobbes #fundie reaxxion.com

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other—until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

-Ayn Rand

The public debut of “Caitlyn” Jenner represents a watershed moment for American culture. Though most have not realized it, Jenner’s coming out party constitutes a significant “trial balloon” on the part of the progressive left and the media. It is an attempt to cash in on years of carefully managed stories on transgender “discrimination,” sympathetic portrayals of transgender characters in entertainment, and the generally successful campaign of the gay rights movement and social justice activists.

The goal is simple: normalize transgenderism to such an extent that any criticism of the concept or its practitioners will not be tolerated.

They must not be allowed to succeed. Whether the silent majority of Americans realize it or not, the transgender issue represents the last best opportunity to turn the tide in the culture wars. Make no mistake: the progressives are winning. Twenty years ago a person could openly criticize homosexuality. Today, thanks to the Supreme Court, people who do not enthusiastically endorse gay marriage are branded as bigots, disqualified from high-profile business positions, and generally dismissed as ignorant hicks whose views are outside of the scope of acceptable thought.

Media outlets have already taken sides and are branding people as being “transphobic” for not accepting the idea that Bruce Jenner is now a female. It is now “bigoted” to refer to Bruce as a “he.” Even so much as joking about Jenner is verboten. The media is rallying around him, protecting him, in spite of the fact that his refusal to get sex reassignment surgery, his sexual preference for women, and his recently having killed someone in a car accident all make him a very poor candidate as the face of transgenderism.

Nevertheless, they have made him the poster boy, hoping that everyday TV watchers won’t sweat the details and that the popularity of the Kardashians will keep him relevant. The next steps include some Will and Grace style sitcom to make transgenders seem more hip and fun, adoption by the Democratic Party as the next great civil rights issue, and finally a sustained campaign of legal and private ideological bullying until transgender acceptance is the new normal.


"The Line In The Sand"

Why must we draw the line at transgenderism? I argue that legitimization of transgenderism would constitute a cultural sea change. It would be the first time the cultural fascists had succeeded in enforcing genuine doublethink. Leftist ideology regarding transgenderism not only contradicts existing progressive doctrines (feminism), but is also literally false. You are being ordered to believe in a fairy tale—the idea that a dog can transform into a cat if it just wishes for it hard enough—and this is where the danger lies.

To be clear, I do not argue that we need to persecute or hate transgenders: people have the right to choose to play dress up and freely associate with others who indulge their delusions. What we need to protect is our right to disapprove of their behavior and reject their “science.” We must dig our heels in and fight. One is reminded of Picard’s words on the Borg in First Contact:

“We’ve made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther!”: might as well be GamerGate’s slogan.

Of course, in the film Jean-Luc eventually agrees with Lily, though this does not refute his point about the Borg. He is right when he says that repeated compromise and surrender will not work. As in any war, the longer good men wait to fight back, the more difficult it is to overcome a metastasizing and emboldened evil.

The progressives have been encouraged by traditional Americans’ reluctance to fight back due to a mixture of indifference, moral cowardice, and bemusement. They are strengthened by the tendency of mainstream society to not take them seriously, to say “Who cares about Bruce Jenner and the reality TV sideshow!”, and to think that the goodwill and tolerance extended toward progressives will be returned.

This last point is crucial when we consider the history of previous civil rights causes. Earlier progressive campaigns pertaining to issues such as women’s lib, gay rights, and miscegenation had decent libertarian justifications and did not seek to impose much on society save tolerance of alternative life choices. (Social conservatives would likely argue that there were other negative consequences.)

Transgenderism, by contrast, imposes a great deal on American society. It requires us to revisit all questions of sex segregation, everywhere from schools to sports leagues to bathrooms. And note that this is all demanded based on the softer concept, “gender,” as transgenders have all but stopped using the term “transsexual.” They understand that with current technology, sex is immutable.

Since gender is supposedly just about feelings instead of biology, transgender logic would allow any man to claim he is a woman and waltz into a women’s locker room. There is no requirement that he pass for a female, nor is there a requirement that his “feeling” be permanent.


"The Real Danger"

The biggest problem with the transgender agenda is that it erodes our right to our own minds and to our perceptions of reality. A man is not a woman merely because he believes he is one, yet the progressives would have us believe so on pain of social ostracism, loss of employment, and discrimination lawsuits. If we give progressives the right to redefine reality, then we are no better off than Winston in 1984 when he was tortured for refusing to say that 2 and 2 equal 5 (or to continue the Star Trek references, Picard when he was tortured by the Cardassians for refusing to pretend there were five lights. And isn’t it weird that “Cardassian” sounds like “Kardashian?”)

What argument could there possibly be against polygamy, pedophilia, zoophilia, or any range of (currently) unacceptable behaviors? If the legal criteria for a thing’s identity is mere belief on the part of the subject, why shouldn’t a child be allowed to have a romantic relationship with an adult if he believes himself to be an adult as well?

Children are too young to make that choice you say? Then why are there transgender children? Surely you can’t argue that a small child ought to be able to take hormones and change their gender (a decision that will have a massive impact on the rest of their lives), yet cannot consent to sex. If feelings are good enough in one case, then why not the other?

We are not only legitimizing a subculture that will invite massive legal headache and mischief upon our society, we are also establishing a criteria for said legitimacy that is so patently irrational and dangerous as to ensure an endless queue of additional subcultures will come forward seeking the same affirmation from society.

It is perhaps ironic that it is the traditionalists and conservatives that are arguing that there is more to being a woman than copying stereotypical gender norms and looking the part. To say that Bruce Jenner is a woman after a bit of surgery and makeup is degrading to the idea of womanhood. The case of Rachel Dolezal shows that black people are not especially tolerant of whites identifying as black merely because they “feel” they are. Yet there is no strong argument against transracialism if we accept transgenderism.

Given the example of Dolezal, women should be just as insulted at the pretense of someone like Bruce Jenner. Lacking the biology and differing treatment from society that comes from actually being a woman, his claim that he “has always felt like a woman” is absurd on its face. What he really feels is a compulsive desire to play dress up: to make manifest a fetishized ideal of femininity brought about by his own psychological insecurities and a “grass is always greener” presumption about life as a woman.

Transgender people suffer from a pervasive mental illness, and as a result they deserve our sympathy. There is no reason to be violent or mean toward them. Still, we should not be expected to affirm their neuroses anymore than we should affirm the beliefs of a schizophrenic who believes himself to be an alien.

The time for compromise is over. Do not apologize for “misgendering” them, do not feel bad for calling him “Bruce,” do not be afraid to make jokes about them (they say worse things about whites and Christians), and do not ever apologize for rejecting their unscientific hogwash. This noisy .001% of the population is sick and should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us. When they tell you to move, plant yourself like a tree by the river of truth and tell them: no. You move.

Ambrose Kane #fundie ambrosekane.com

I Would NOT Feel Bad if ISIS Captured & Tortured Our High-Ranking Transgender Military Officials

If one or more of our high-ranking Transgender military officials were captured and publicly tortured beyond comprehension by ISIS, I would not feel bad for them in the least. I would not shed one tear for them. As wicked and cruel as ISIS may be, I really do understand their hatred for the level of perversion and societal degeneracy that rules the West.

Troops of Transgendered men and women within our military are bad enough. I do not hate them per se. I see them as duped, as victims of our Leftist overlords. Yet, at the same time, I have a special contempt for high-ranking military officials who ‘come out’ and declare their freakish perversion. They are the leaders who, in effect, embolden other degenerates to declare their Transfreakishness.

As bad as Islam is, Muslims are right to feel derision and disgust at the widespread debauchery and deviancy that has become normative in our societies. In fact, it’s normal to feel a sense of shock, horror, and disgust at the freaks who parade themselves in our faces daily. The only reason so many people don’t have this reaction is because they have become desensitized by the constant voices telling us that it’s ‘perfectly normal’ and something we should ‘celebrate.’

Healthy people – that is, people who are healthy in their minds and whose conscience has not be seared or polluted by Leftist dogma – are repulsed by Transgenders and ‘flaming’ homosexuals prancing about. It’s the natural reaction of our bodies, our defense mechanism, to be instantly repelled by something so obviously contrary to the created order.

Some people think our parade of freaks is an indication of how ‘progressive’ the West is; that it’s willing to ‘accept’ everyone and everything no matter what is claimed or espoused. In reality, it’s an overt indication of our decline, that we are morally regressive, that we have crossed the border of ‘No Return.’ It’s proof that we have become insane, and unable to recognize how demented we’ve become. While boasting of our technological achievements, we are nothing more than moral pygmies, pretending that we are ‘enlightened’ but dumb as brutes.

Acupuncture advocates #fundie sciencebasedmedicine.org

Legislative Alchemy 2017: Acupuncture
Acupuncture is nothing more than a theatrical placebo. Yet acupuncturists, defined as primary care practitioners in some states, are succeeding in licensing and practice expansion efforts in state legislatures.

Acupuncture is a theatrical placebo. Its proposed mechanism of action is highly implausible and:

after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.

In layman’s terms, acupuncture does not work – for anything.

Even the very CAM-friendly National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), in its own weasel-worded way, comes close to conceding the point:

Research suggests that acupuncture can help manage certain pain conditions, but evidence about its value for other health conditions is uncertain. [Emphasis added.]

Somebody tell the state legislatures. Via the magic of Legislative Alchemy, 47 states have legalized the practice of acupuncture along with, in some cases, Traditional Chinese, Oriental or East Asian medicine. In several states, acupuncture practice acts describe acupuncturists as primary care practitioners and/or give them the authority diagnose and treat any condition or disease. For example, in my state, Florida, the practice act says that acupuncture:

means a form of primary health care, based on traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques, that employs acupuncture diagnosis and treatment, as well as adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques, for the promotion, maintenance, and restoration of health and the prevention of disease. [Emphasis added.]

In Nevada,

“Acupuncture” means the insertion of needles into the human body by piercing the skin of the body to control and regulate the flow and balance of energy in the body and to cure, relieve or palliate:

(a) Any ailment or disease of the mind or body; or

(b) Any wound, bodily injury or deformity. [Emphasis added.]

And in New Mexico:

“doctor of oriental medicine” means a person licensed as a physician to practice acupuncture and oriental medicine with the ability to practice independently, serve as a primary care provider and as necessary collaborate with other health care providers . . .

“oriental medicine” means the distinct system of primary health care that uses all allied techniques of oriental medicine, both traditional and modern, to diagnose, treat and prescribe for the prevention, cure or correction of disease, illness, injury, pain or other physical or mental condition by controlling and regulating the flow and balance of energy, form and function to restore and maintain health. [Emphasis added.]

As with state chiropractic and naturopathic licensing, most states rely on a closed-loop system of education and examinations that is completely controlled by acupuncturists in determining who is qualified to become licensed. The National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) administers the certification exams recognized by the states. Applicants for certification must have either graduated from schools accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM) or foreign schools meeting criteria set by the NCCAOM.

While the ACAOM is approved as an accrediting agency by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department does not review the scientific validity of what is taught or perform any independent analysis of the graduates’ ability to competently and safely practice. Its focus is on administrative matters and the financial stability of the schools. The ACAOM standards do not require a college degree for admission to an accredited acupuncture/Oriental Medicine school and only 500 hours of supervised patient care are required in accredited programs to graduate with a Master’s in acupuncture (700 hours for a Master’s in Oriental Medicine). A Master’s allows one to sit for the NCCAOM exam. In sum, someone with no college degree and 500 hours of clinical training can become a “primary care provider” in some states.

2017 bills

Today we look at bills filed in eleven states to license, or expand the practice of, acupuncturists during the 2017 state legislative sessions. Six were successful. Two bills were defeated; three remain pending.

Prior to last year, acupuncturists did not have a practice act in Wyoming. This year they succeeded in gaining one, although the Wyoming legislature stopped short of giving them the right to practice Oriental Medicine, which was eliminated in the final bill. Acupuncture is somewhat narrowly defined as inserting needles, with or without electric current or heat, into the body for:

therapeutic purpose of promoting, maintaining and restoring health, including [but, we note, not limited to] the treatment of dysfunctions of the body involving pain.

Wyoming also joins several states who’ve been bamboozled into thinking sticking needles into peoples’ ears, otherwise known as “auricular acupuncture,” is effective for substance abuse and mental health issues. Promoted based on an unpublished and cherry-picked review of the evidence by an organization called the National Acupuncture Detoxification Association (NADA), it is a perennial favorite with state legislatures looking to address mental health issues and drug abuse on the cheap.

New Hampshire enacted legislation creating something called a “Certified Acupuncture Detoxification Specialist,” who must be trained in the NADA protocol and supervised by an acupuncturist, although the “Specialist” needn’t be an acupuncturist himself. They can use “acu-detox” for:

behavioral health applications, including addictions, mental health, and disaster and emotional trauma.

One version of the bill specified that “acu-detox” could be used only in conjunction with other therapies but that bit of consumer protection against the ineffectiveness of pseudoscience in treating serious conditions was rejected.

Likewise, in Maine, a new law requires the state Department of Health and Human Services to develop a pilot project that will treat alcohol and substance abuse using the unproven NADA protocol. Fortunately, more sober minds prevailed in West Virginia, where a bill allowing the practice of NADA auricular acupuncture for chemical dependency failed.

Like their fellow CAM practitioners, naturopaths and chiropractors, once licensed, acupuncturists will return again and again to the state legislatures for practice expansion. In 2017, they succeeded in a big way in Illinois. There the legislature added the practice of “East Asian” medicine to the acupuncturists’ scope of practice, defined to include needle acupuncture, moxibustion, herbal medicine, and dietary supplements, among others, to:

normalize physiological functions, or for the treatment of diseases or dysfunctions of the body.

Acupuncture itself is broadly defined to include not only traditional needle acupuncture, but also far-infrared, electro- and magnetic stimulation, cold laser, cupping, dry needling (discussed below), and the bruising massage practice known as gua sha:

In a move reminiscent of the chiropractic lobby’s efforts to make chiropractic schools the arbiter of what chiropractors can and cannot do, Illinois practitioners of acupuncture and East Asian medicine are permitted to perform a differential diagnosis via principles and techniques taught in acupuncture schools, like the fanciful tongue and pulse diagnosis.

Unnamed Austrian official #fundie nytimes.com

Gay Afghan Teenager Denied Asylum in Austria Because He Didn’t Fit Stereotype, Rights Group Says

BERLIN — A gay Afghan 18-year-old who was seeking asylum in Austria because he feared persecution in his country had his application denied because the authorities said he did not act like a stereotypical gay man, citing his walk, behavior and clothing, according to a Vienna-based organization that helps refugees.

In a case that illustrates the plight of many L.G.B.T. refugees coming to Europe, the organization, Queer Base, said the teenager, whom it did not identify, provided testimony at an asylum hearing this spring that he became aware of his sexuality when he was 12 and living in Afghanistan.

He migrated to Austria as a minor, according to the organization, which kept all other details of the teenager’s life and journey confidential at his request.

But after he applied for asylum, the document outlining the decision quoted an official as saying that the man’s claim that he was gay was not believable based on how he had acted while living in Austria.

“Neither your walk, nor your behavior nor your clothing give the slightest indication that you could be gay,” says the decision, which was more than 100 pages.

“They reported that you frequently got into fights with roommates,” it said. “You clearly have the potential to be aggressive, which would not be expected in a homosexual.”

lso said that the young man was not described as having many friends while in Austria. “Don’t homosexuals tend to be rather sociable?” it said.

Human Rights Watch said in its 2017 report on Afghanistan that the country’s law criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct, and the report cited harassment, violence and detention of gay people by the police. The organization’s report this year noted that same-sex relations are punishable by five to 15 years in prison under a law that bans all sex between individuals not married to each other. Advocates for L.G.B.T. people operate largely underground out of fear of persecution, the organization said.

And while laws in places like Austria are much more gay-friendly, L.G.B.T. refugees often face challenges coming out, even if it would help their cases for seeking asylum, gay-rights experts say.

On the other hand, pretending to be gay or lesbian to increase one’s odds in the asylum process is relatively rare, those experts say. It’s more common for L.G.B.T. refugees to continue to hide their sexual identities and to lie about the reasons for seeking asylum, said Patrick Dörr, who runs Queer Refugees, a German state-sponsored program for L.G.B.T. refugees coming to Germany.

“Many of them have to overcome shame and stigma,” Marty Huber, a founder of Queer Base, said in an interview on Thursday.

The teenager was interviewed for his application in late April and the decision was handed down in early May. The decision gained international attention this week when a Vienna weekly newsmagazine, Falter, published details of his case.

Nina Horaczek, who wrote the initial article, published the key excerpts from the document that described the institution’s response to the teenager’s asylum request based on his sexual orientation.

The teenager continues to live in Austria as he appeals the decision. He has declined to be interviewed, Ms. Huber said.

Christoph Pölzl, a spokesman for the Austrian Interior Ministry, confirmed on Thursday that the decision was authentic. He said that the country’s Federal Immigration and Asylum agency had made decisions on about 120,000 asylum requests.

“In the asylum process, the asylum seeker must make his reason for flight credible,” he said. He declined to discuss the specific case of the Afghan teenager.

Migrants who flee their home countries for Europe face perilous and sometimes fatal journeys crossing by boat or over land, often at the hands of unscrupulous human traffickers.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said this month that more than 1,500 refugees and migrants had died trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea in the first seven months of 2018, with 850 deaths in June and July alone.

About 60,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean so far this year, around half as many as during the same period last year, the refugee agency said. Spain has become the primary destination, with more than 23,500 people arriving by sea, compared with around 18,500 in Italy and 16,000 in Greece, the agency said.

Most of the migrants who have ended up in Austria have traveled by land through the Balkans.

Austria has recently tightened its asylum requirements. One such change gives the government control over where refugees are placed, which can mean that L.G.B.T. people find themselves in conservative states where it is harder to integrate.

In June, Navid Jafartash, a gay refugee from Iraq, said on Austrian television that he was asked during an asylum application interview to explain what the colors on the rainbow flag stood for. When Mr. Jafartash, who lived with an Austrian partner at the time, was unable to do so, his asylum application was initially denied, he said in the television interview.

Activists say that L.G.B.T. refugees are especially vulnerable because in many cases they do not want to discuss their sexuality at an official hearing. Translators often act as more of an impediment than the Austrian officials because they come from the same community as the asylum seeker.

“Many of them have to overcome shame and stigma,” said Ms. Huber, whose organization is helping more than 400 L.G.B.T. refugees in Austria.

The asylum seekers also run into trouble in the asylum centers, where they are forced to live among their peers after they have outed themselves to an immigration official.

Sometimes refugees are not aware that their sexuality could help their case for asylum, Mr. Dörr said.

As for the decision in the Afghan teenager’s case, “it’s scandalous misconduct,” he said. “It just makes you shake your head.”

Some incels #sexist #conspiracy #kinkshaming reddit.com

Re: It's already beginning

image

[Transcript: The Daily Signal: The American Psychological Association says monogamy is the new bigotry.]

(OnlyTrueCels)

Mental health professions are full of subversive cucks, wanting the collapse of Western civilization.

I wonder who could be behind such a thing? Who could have such motives.....

(Charlie_truth2)

Just go see a therapist bro ! Meanwhile this is what they do

This is what female health "professionals" think of men patients

(GayAlienSkull)

seriously, therapy is such a fucking joke. i can't believe how much money I wasted on it. if therapy actually helped you, you never had an real problems to begin with.

(PhilMcCracken760)

At least the pic isn’t a cuck and his wife’s bull

Of course it isn't. They need to sell this to all kinds of men, remember? The one who thinks he could totally pull a threesome with that secretary at work if only his wife would get on board with the idea. The one who thinks that he'll be more romantically successful if his dating pool included married women. The one who has had thoughts of cheating for years. The simp who thinks that women having more sex will result in pussy trickling down to him.

We know goddamn well that the reality is closer to your vision than the one shown to us because it's a buyer's market for even the homeliest of women whereas only exemplary men are similarly desired. But the powers that be need to hide that if Billy Beta is going to get on board with the latest and greatest assault on the nuclear family.

(Concerned-father2)

The picture shows a man with two women but we all know that 99% of these relationships will be one woman and two (or more) men. Same trick propaganda they tried to pull on us in the early 2000’s, promising trickle down effect after sexual liberalisation. Not falling for that bullshit again. And she will be holding hands with chad, while the main hubby will be tagging along behind like a dog.

Higgscel & Various TERFs #sexist #transphobia incels.co

[LifeFuel] You made your bed, now sleep in it bitch.

Over.

I feel like the fight is over. Women have lost.

This morning I learned USA Swimming decided to follow IOC transgender policies for their junior divisions, Scottish government declaring men with penises in women's private areas are no different than women with different bodies like those who had mastectomy, and saw multiple threads of universities low-key changing all single-sex bathrooms into gender neutral bathrooms.

When Trump won the White House, the TV adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was at its height of popularity. A girl friend of mine in Scotland was telling me that our western democratic societies can turn like this overnight. I didn't really agree with her at the time. Trump in the White House was alarming, but I also thought it was liberal fearmongering to think our entire social structure can be torn away and all of women's rights being taken away just like that. Surely this couldn't happen, right? Our systems are well-entrenched and women would rise up and raise hell if something like this ever happen.

3 years later and here we are. The only crazy thing is that it's not the radical conservative right that is bringing forth this dystopian world for women. It's the Woke Left--the very people who fearmongered women about how bad Trump and the Republicans would be for women. What a fking bait and switch! Here we are, I'm watching, flabbergasted, how women's rights are being taken away overnight just like that. Yes indeed, they can just do it. (For the record, this is not a pro-Trump post. But I can't hold it back anymore how utterly beyond shock I am that this vengeance against women is coming from the left. I'm at the point where I feel like the conservative right is actually benign, that's how shell-shocked I am.)

And not only are women not rising up and raising hell. Tons of them--all of them on Wokes--are now fking Serena Joy and Aunt Lydia, crucifying other women for mortal offenses like "misgendering" and gaslighting other women to strip them of their basic instinct to believe their guts when they're feeling vulnerable.

I feel so oppressed and helpless right now. It doesn't matter how loud we all scream to be heard. The powers that be really can just overnight take it all away. This is not a drill.

And they'll continue to oppress us, while scaring us with the same old rhetorics about how our right to choice will be taken away to threaten us to fold to their side. As long as we are blinded to keep our eyes only on the fight against the conservative right to think that's the only threat to us, women won't see what they're doing. Women won't see what's coming. And the younger generations of women will simply be groomed and conditioned to the New World Order.

I literally feel sick. I want off this train.

ETA: changed "single bathroom" to "single-sex bathrooms." And thanks for the silver.

And over.

Men wanting to be seen as cute young girls is infuriating

Signed, a 4"11 woman, hovering around 90lbs, who will never walk into a room and be respected. I'm in my mid-twenties, multiple times a day I get told I look like a child. I'm fetishized constantly, get dirty looks and disgusting comments whenever I'm out with my child, can't go to work without being asked if I'm old enough to serve alcohol. When I ask not to be called cute, or picked up and prodded, I'm told it's a fucking compliment. It's very depressing feeling like I won't be seen as a woman until I'm middle-aged.

At first, I really tried to understand the trans community. I don't feel comfortable in my body either, and in my head I'm 6 feet tall and built like a tank, but seeing grown ass men "child play" is the most disgusting and offensive thing I've ever had the displeasure of discovering.

And over again.

Painting your face and/or nails doesn't change your gender! Makeup is not a gender!

This won't be my most eloquent post here but I'm at my wits' end.

Sorry, I just feel like screaming right now. I work in a job where I could be fired for expressing even the slightest hint that I might be gender critical and it's non-binary day or some other nonsense. I keep seeing all these posters with bearded dudes in neon eyeshadow or young women with short hair and glitter and I just want to scream! Makeup! Isn't! A! Gender!

Where will this regressive nonsense end? I already had to back away from a friendship with a dude who came out as a they/them and immediately started spouting off on how cis women are oppressing him because he sometimes gets questioned by his parents about wearing eyeliner and someone hesitated before holding the door to the women's toilet open for him. A grown man!

I honestly think the nonbinary bullshit is more harmful and regressive than the trans stuff. I could sympathise with trans medicalists to a degree. This just reeks of "not like the other girls" and "I need some oppression points."

I work with people in poverty. I work with people with learning disorders and disabilities who've had their utilities cut off. I help recovering addicts go about getting enough food to live. I see young mums who were forced away from abortions by restrictive communities now struggling with actual starvation and violence at home. I help abused women find a shelter for their pets so their partners can't murder the animal when she tries to escape.

I see actual oppression every damn day. I've been on the breadline. I'm disabled. I know oppression.

You painting your nails and getting "Sir"-ed at the local grocery store isn't oppression. Grow up!

These women will complain about trannies. And no, not cherry picking, these posts are all "top" in their subreddit, in the last week.
Despite probably the same women who pushed for these tranny degeneracy and sexual openness, thanks to their PC nature.
Women invading male spaces? Empowering. Men in skirts invading your bathroom? In my opinion, "Deserving". Get ready for the 2020 Olympics ladies, men in skirts are after your world records.

Anywhoo, doesn't it feel good that both enemies are starting to have a go at one another? Get fucked both of you.

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

Romance is whatever will get a man laid.[1]

Women's expectations of romance

TornadoByProxy notes:[2]

Women want the emotional jolt from romantic movies but not all that faggy bullshit in real life.

Men want the emotional jolt from horror films but not all that murder and blood in real life.

Do you see the similarities?

Khan notes, "One of these tricks women often play is the notion of romance. Sure, they say they want romance. But they only want romance from men who sexually arouse them in the first place. Betas fall for this trap and believe they have to be nice to women in order to get laid - a type of behavior women find sexually repulsive, which a lot of us have learned the hard way - and thus weed themselves out of the game in favor of alphas."[3]

Man as true romantics

It is often said that men are the true romantics. Mage writes:[4]

[N]otice how there are almost no songs in modern times where a woman proclaims her undying love for a man. Most songs with a female singer today are about girrl power, how she needs no man and get some dude to pay hard for his cheating/lying/looking at other woman/not being perfect/just being a bore.

There are plenty of songs where a male singer proclaims his undying love and willingness to self sacrifice for a woman while deifying her . . . .

To answer the question generally why men are the romantic sex - it's because men like to follow ideals. Not all men but many men have ideals about family life too and would like to have a house, a good wife and children. For other men political ideals are more important for other men the religious or scientific thoughts are more exciting, but generally most non-degenerate men will have some ideals in some or multiple areas of life that they fight for. and take pride of being warriors for this ideal.

For women generally no ideals are important they act based on combination on their procreation instinct, survival instinct and current social norms. This makes them more adaptable, shallow and treacherous. They are also given bigger rationalization powers to keep themselves and others in denial about their nature at expense of an ability to retrospect and understand themselves.

Disco_Volante notes, "Women are passive, men initiate and must run the seduction process. Creating attraction, knowing what her 'mood' is, etc.. Women control sex and only react to attractive behaviors, that's why men have to put in so much work to 'figure it out', whereas women are passive and don't really have to do anything."[5]

Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D. #fundie disqus.com

AmyLainy:

Relative to the Fall, it does explain why some heathens turn sodomite, but not in the way that you fantasize. Allow me to enlighten you in regards to the where homos, dykes, and nancyboys come from. From Romans 1, to wit:

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Can it be made any clearer that the f@ggots are NOT born that way?! They become this way because they rejected Jesus! Had they TRULY repented of their sins, accepted Jesus as their Savior, and were Born Again, they would have been Saved from this disgusting sin as well as from all the others! So who's to blame for them being that way? NOT any genetics, but themselves and their rejection of Jesus!

Their parents, teachers, and pastors are also to blame, though not as much as the perverts themselves. Proverbs 13:24, to wit: " He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Great Biblical wisdom, and it so happens that a boot up their behind tends to clear up all this identity "confusion"! Praise the Lord!

In the same vein, we also need to always keep in mind that none of that would've happened, had the woman not been deceived in the Garden! 1 Timothy 2:14 So, yes, ultimately it all goes back to the Fall, but not for any reason of biology or genetics.

In the name of our Savior,
Brother T

Some incels #sexist #psycho reddit.com

Re: Dumb bitch accidentally proves the blackpill

image

(EstUperi)

Imagine bragging about how many foids your son has fucked lol

Clown world

Everytime I look at western birthrates, I smile.

(balkancel)

I don't give a fuck what happens. Muslims take over, Putin nukes the west, Genghis Khan rises from his grave and takes over the world, whatever. As Arthur Brown would say, I'll see you burn.

(Malodextrin5)

Honestly fuck this earth

Smile brother. All of the trash is going to take itself out. There is a reason why traditional life was established in the first place, it’s self replicating. These people’s way of life is a dead end.

(hhhh__)

Husband is a stepdad, aka betabux, and his stepson doesn't respect him lol

Oh, she's also a r/gendercritical regular

Hardcore feminist mother, weak beta step father. No wonder the kid's a cunt.

(Incelvester)

Fuck, this is a mental health counselor. Just go to therapy, bro. You won't regret it.

Right? These are whats trying to brainwash you in therapy. She posts on gendercritical too, BTW. I cant imagine having her has a mental health counselor, and I can only hope she's not destroying people's lives, but at the same time if you're gonna cuck for a female therapist, you deserve to have her ruin you.

(WorldOfCopecraft)

JFL. She probably wears the pants and the son noticed that. Imagine raising Chad's spawn and getting mogged by it when it's 16. FoidsSociopaths raise sociopaths.

Depok immigration officials #racist coconuts.co

Depok Immigration warns of foreign men dating Indonesian women so they can overstay visas and not work

Immigration officials in Depok, a satellite city of Jakarta, are warning the public about foreign men tricking Indonesian women by dating them. We know this because they posted an article to their official website with the headline “Waspadalah, Pria Bule Tipu Wanita Indonesia dengan Modus Ajak Kencan” (“Beware, Foreign Men Deceive Indonesian Women Through The Method of Inviting Them to Date”) although it’s not so much an official press release as it is an official copy-paste of the same article from the news website GoRiau.com.

At any rate, the article says that Depok Immigration authorities say they recently arrested a 38-year-old Australian man with the initials WBR for overstaying his visa for over one year using the modus of dating an Indonesian woman to avoid their detection.

Officials said their investigation had led them to believe the suspect used this method “to reap personal benefits”, specifically staying in Indonesia while not working and letting his girlfriend pay for everything.

According to the immigration authorities, WBR had entered Indonesia on April 21, 2017, on a social and cultural visit visa that was extended with South Jakarta Immigration so that it would last until June 19, 2017. WBR allegedly had not been in contact with immigration until he was arrested by officers at an apartment in the Cinere area of Depok recently.

“So the concerned overstayed one year and four months. He is here living with his girlfriend who is an Indonesian citizen,” Depok Immigration spokesperson Newin Budiyanto told reporters yesterday.

Newin said their investigation found that WBR had deliberately dated the Indonesian woman “in order to fulfill his daily needs” as he did not have a permanent job while living here. He also said that immigration officials had seen several cases similar to his.

“In his home country he is a gardener. Now, after we have investigated, we have found more cases like this. So it turns out that this is a method that is often done by foreigners to violate the rules,” Newin said

Based on Depok Immigration’s data, Newin said they had found similar cases involving four foreigners including ones from Egypt, Yemen and Nigeria.

“The pattern of this modus operandi is the same, dating Indonesian citizens to pay for their living expenses while their residence permits expires. According to our investigation, just one foreigner can date up to three or four Indonesian women,” Newin added.

The immigration spokesperson said that WBR would be charged with violating Indonesian immigration law and could face deportation and detention.

He also noted that Indonesian citizens who helped foreigners illegally stay in the country by protecting them, hiding them or paying for their living expenses knowing that they did not have a valid visa could be sentenced with up to 3 months in prison or a maximum fine of IDR25 million (US$1,700).

Ryan Ashville #sexist returnofkings.com

From comics, movies, anime, gaming, and now the more recent kids shows, feminists will use any kind of tactic to promote their evil. Stories like Rapunzel or The Sleeping Beauty have been a part of our childhood, teaching us about gender roles and the importance of them. Now they have been changed in various ways to suit modern women, giving them unrealistic expectations of what they can be. Here are nine characters that show how they have infiltrated entertainment.

Steven Universe

The show deals with an entire species that is genderless but has feminine traits (female human forms), Steven is a male protagonist that is not masculine in a lot of ways. Rather than being the strong fighter type, he acts through femininity despite being male. He cries for help from women rather than helping himself. The show contains trans, queer and homosexual characters which is typical for a show like this. They have women of different sizes and has quite a dark story line for a show aimed for children. Cartoon Network is now giving a way for brainwashing, glorifying obese women and unhealthy diets.

They even place the emphasis on disguised leftist concepts like:

Tolerance – Praising of everything non-white, non-male and non-heterosexual
Minority – non-whites, non-male and degenerates
Inclusiveness – Accepting everything non-white and degenerate
Emancipation – Disregarding rules made by conservative males

But despite all these teachings, SJWs bullied a Steven Universe artist to attempt suicide because she drew Rose (an obese female character) too thin. Hypocritical? Yes. It certainly has one of the most cancerous fanbases, consisting of bronies and white knights.

Wonder Woman

Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”

– William Moulton Marston, in a 1943 issue of The American Scholar.

Comics publisher Max Gaines asked him to create a new superhero for their comics, to fill the void he felt existed with something new. The creator knew that he wanted his hero to embrace love over violence, and to value peace over war. He assumed that women value love and peace. He valued independent, educated, and unconventional women.

Wonder Woman remains a feminist icon 75 years after her creation, because she symbolizes the idea of female domination. According to NY Post, Wonder Woman was not ‘feminist’ enough for Social Justice Warriors, because SJWs and feminists are never happy with anything in society until white men are silenced. Most wonder woman comics were terrible, but the media keeps pushing it on readers that they HAVE to give in.

BatGirl

Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon is allegedly a woke male feminist ally. He’s a mangina allegedly known for directing “strong female characters”. His characters are unrealistic as women simply can never be tough. He cares about fake women’s issues like the pay gap and the alleged success of lady Ghostbusters. Joss is directing Batgirl, the story about a super heroine who is basically Batman but a woman. Currently he’s facing back-lash on Twitter, but in smaller amounts due to more and more people accepting these kind of reboots.

Overwatch

This game is tainted by women who blame their problems on men. Basically, every character in Overwatch has different victory pose animations that a player can unlock and choose from. And for the time-traveling character Tracer (one of the female characters in the game), her victory pose gives players a wonderful view of her buttocks, clad in skin-tight leggings. Obviously, if men are enjoying something there must be feminist intervention, so Blizzard changed her appearance and stated:

We’ll replace the pose. We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented. Apologies and we’ll continue to try to do better.

Women expose themselves to men in conventions, and when they are assaulted they complain that “men should respect women,” even when their own clothes were designed to attract men. But when a character in a video game wears skimpy clothing, there is an outright backlash against it. Overwatch is even taking strides to be LGBT inclusive. This marks the end of straight white man in entertainment.

Wandering Son

Wandering Son follows two fifth graders who do not identify with the genders they were assigned at birth. Shuichi Nitori identifies as a girl, and Yoshino Takatsuki identifies as a boy. This series marks the end of an era, modern anime has come to suit feminist tastes. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

Splash

The 80s film, starring Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, is set for a reboot with Channing Tatum starring as the “merman”. The original Splash was about a man, Allen Bauer (Hanks), who falls in love with the mermaid (Daryl Hannah) who rescued him when he was a boy. Their relationship is hampered somewhat by the fact that the mermaid (who later names herself Madison) has to return to the sea after just a few short days, and also by the deranged scientist determined to prove that merpeople are real by throwing water at her.

Since the announcement, many feminists have been celebrating the gender swap on social media – particularly Tatum’s casting as a merman as some kind of feminist victory… but why? Because of the casting of a white, straight male in a role that was originally held by a woman. Hollywood’s content has become more man-hating than ever before. Seeing men in feminine roles is a way of brainwashing men to be submissive and less masculine.

Gender swapping is fast becoming a fail-safe way for Hollywood to shut up anyone who kicks off about equality without actually having to write anything new: Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, Ghostbusters. All these films have either been made or are in the works and all of them have some kind of “feminist twist”. I’ve seen these gender bends in anime too, although no one seems to notice because anime gender bending is normalized.

Undertale

Your character is non-ambiguous (genderless) and non-white, which one could assume it is Asian or Mexican. They never refer to you as “him” or “her”. Despite having a small amount of characters, it managed to include homosexual relationships and a transgender robot. There are more homosexual couples than their opposite counterparts, and both the prominent female characters break out of gender roles. Undyne being the best fighter in the underground, another unrealistic feminist expectation that women can be better than men.

Do you see where “progressiveness” in gaming is really heading? Because the game pushes “progressive propaganda”. One of the major themes of the game that people have been gloating about is the notion that gay relationships are wonderful and perfect, straight relationships are doomed, diversity is strength, promoting inter-species romantic relationships, and it’s primarily because of this thematic content that the game gets praised. That is why Tumblr is spamming the votes, and the media is circle-jerking over the game. Nearing the end of the game I dawned upon the similarities of this game and Steven Universe. There’s nothing particularly special about the game except for discreetly lecturing you about homosexuality and political correctness.

Sailor Moon

It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality (lesbian propaganda). The series also makes a point of looking down on femininity, by showing how the less feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.
Though, I somewhat find it astonishing that the creator of the site anime feminist doesn’t care about “fanservice”, which is short softcore porn scenes, it occured to me because they know about the female supremacy in anime.

Life Is Strange

The creators of the game met with resistance to make the protagonist female. It’s a story about a girl named Max who learns that she can time travel. Life is Strange are some of the few games that are telling women’s untold stories in ways that make it seem as if women have it harder.

It’s simply a game made to exaggerate and show how cruel men can be to women (almost every man in the game is either a loser or a woman beating trash). It attempts to lecture you and say things like “these men need to be in check” whenever it finds the chance to. This game was published by SQUARE ENIX who also published Tomb Raider. Why is it that those people who push equality so much then decide to make a game where it’s about the girl, never around the male?

Conclusion

Modern entertainment is becoming more about social justice than hardware, software, story, gameplay, or animation, while we get to endure feminists complain about everything they don’t like, ruining entertainments we were once able to enjoy.

disruptor #conspiracy christianforums.net

HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization", to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease.

Anyone doubting this should consider that HIV has never even been isolated. This simple and amazing fact in itself should make everyone suspicious about the entire AIDS industry.

When someone "tests positive" for HIV, they actually test positive for reverse transcriptase enzyme activity which is assumed to indicate the presence of HIV in the patient. There is in fact a total lack of evidence for the existence of HIV.

At the time, everyone was in a mad rush to find the "cause" of AIDS. Those who came up with something first would be assured of endless research funds, fame etc. The homosexual lobby seized on the first announcement to claim a viral cause, since then it would no longer be their own fault. It's always easier to blame a "virus" than one's own misbehavior.

Rom. 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Some Quotes on the Non-Existence of HIV:

"Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate in chemistry 1993 and inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, needed a reference for "the generally known fact" that HIV was the cause of AIDS. While working on a project he became aware that he didn´t know a scientific reference for the statement he had just written down: HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. So he asked the next virologist at the table after that basic paper. The virologist told Mullis, he wouldn´t need a reference in this case; after all, everyone knows that HIV leads to AIDS. Kary Mullis disagreed and thought such an important discovery should be published in some paper. He learnt soon that it was impossible to find such a paper." Claus Kohnlein.

"Whenever and wherever reverse transcriptase activity was detected it was rashly assumed that retroviruses were at work. This turned out to be a grave error, because it was later found that the enzyme occurred in all living matter, proving that reverse transcriptase activity had nothing to do with retroviruses per se.......It is incomprehensible that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier's group, as well as Gallo's group itself in 1984, claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue abnormalities from which they were obtained. They concluded: "the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined". Stefan Lanka.

http://www.whale.to/a/hivfraud.html

whinyliberal #fundie forums.military.com

[Typical fundie persecution complex]


We, the Democratic party of America, have a dream. We dream of an America where:

All guns are confiscated, so no one can defend themselves
Where all prisoners, except Christians, are set free
Where no white men exist
Where no Christians exist
Where all churches are closed and burned to the ground
Where Evolution is dogma that cannot be challenged, and Christiantiy is a crime
Where all priests and pastors have been jailed
Where marriage between men and women is outlawed, but gays are encouraged and permitted to marry
Where the tax rate is 100 per cent
Where all private property has been siezed and put to the use of the people
Where the IRS has hounded the NRA and the Christian Coalition out of existence
Where all crosses have been removed from everywhere
Where Islam has become victorious
Where private property is outlawed for the crime it is
Where no Republicans can ever again get elected
Where elections are outlawed so that we can do what we want without fear of being voted out of office
Where we can raid the treasury for ourselves and our communist endeavors
Where no dissent is allowed
Where dissenters are shot
Where liberalism becomes the religion of the land
Where God is removed from our money and courts
Where Hillary Clinton is a saint and no one is allowed to say otherwise
Where all Christian books are burned including the Bible
Where adult child sex is normal and abstinence is abnormal
Where no more prayer is allowed and is against the law
Where all borders are erased so that all who want to come here and get welfare are free to do so
Where men are jailed for looking at a woman
Where men are jailed for asking a woman for a date
Where men are not allowed to live in the same town as their children
Where any race or sex but white heterosexual men can speak in public and hold office
Where global warming caused by humans is accepted as truth and cannot be challenged
Where no white person can hold the office of presidency unless they are liberal or gay
Where the state takes children away and 'educates' them as soon as they are born
Where men who fail to pay child support regardless of the fact that they are not allowed to see their children are put in prison for life
Where all talk radio is outlawed
Where PBS is mandated for children to view
Where Rosie O'Donnell is regarded as a saint
Where no white male can be the head of any company unless he is gay
Where no white male can serve in the military unless he is a private and no higher or he is gay
Where the pagan god Queztocotl is worshipped
Where all pro life persons are imprisoned
Where women are required to dress like men and vice versa
Where lying by us is unchallenged
Where all monuments to Conservative politicians or war heroes are destroyed and replaced with feminist or gay icons
Where the antichrist can come to power without opposition
Where animals are not hunted
Where the eating of meat is outlawed.
Where chimpanzees are considered persons but some humans are not
Where no woman takes the name of any man


These are just some of our dreams. Will you join us? We know paradise is just within reach. Vote democrat to make these dreams come true

GallusMag #sexist gendertrender.wordpress.com

He Stabbed A Woman More Than Thirty Times, Wins Billionaire Funded Legal Battle To Wear “Panties” In Prison

On Sunday, September 22, 2013, Reiyn (pronounced “reign”) Keohane, 19, stabbed a woman in the throat. Then he stabbed her again. And again, and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. In her chest he stabbed: again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, and more: over and over and over and over.

“More than thirty times” he stabbed her.

His victim was Caley Patrick, she was 23 years old, and was his roommate.

From ABC7:


“She ran from her apartment to her friends over there,” says neighbor Tayaba Barclay. “There was a trail of blood.”

Police say Patrick had been stabbed in the neck and chest.

According to neighbors, she was screaming, knocking on doors and begging for help.

“She said, ‘help me, help me; I’m dying,'” said neighbor John Boatright, “[She said] I’m going to die; please, don’t let me die.”

Boatright opened the door to Patrick’s desperate knock. He said Patrick was hunched over and covered in blood when he pulled her into his apartment.

“She lost a lot of blood and I was spazing,” recalled Boatright, “I said call 911, call 911.”

That is when his roommate, John Strickland, picked up his phone and dialed.

“When she collapsed right here she said ‘get me help, don’t let me die. I don’t want to die. He stabbed me’,” said John Strickland.

According to reports, Patrick said it was her roommate, Reiyn Keohane, that stabbed her.

“My lungs are feeling up; I can feel them filling up with blood,” Strickland said.

“They say if we hadn’t of found her she probably would have died,” said Boatright.

Patrick was rushed into surgery and is in critical condition.

Police arrested Keohane seven minutes away at his parent’s home.

Reports show Keohane had two knives and a loaded AR-15 magazine.”

Miraculously, Caley survived after emergency surgery, intensive care, and rehab. Her family and loved ones raised $1,200. at a benefit dinner. “Join us as we celebrate the survival and life of Caley!!”

Meanwhile, Reiyn Keohane was arrested at his parent’s house in possession of two knives and a loaded clip for an AR15. He pled No Contest to a second degree murder charge. There was no dinner for him. He didn’t need one, because he was a male who “identified as transgender”, and as such received representation and support from international multi-billionaire legal firm DLA Piper, as well as the ACLU.

Unlike the victim of the attack, who received nothing from nobody, the perpetrator has been gifted with countless thousands of dollars in billable hours in support of his affinity as a male for stereotypically sexy female undergarments.

image

According to trial documents Reiyn Keohane was placed on the off-label, FDA unapproved, high dose estrogen regime typically prescribed for transgender identifying males, by his “pediatric endocrinologist”, only six weeks before he stabbed roommate Caley again and again and again and again and again and again and etc.

This is the same transgender drug regime that ax attacker Evie Amanti tried to claim as a defense in his trial last month.

Reiyn Keohane had been strongly supported in his “transgender identity” by his family. His mother started her own organization in support of transgender youth, and personally helped her son shop for “lingerie”.

From the Bonita Springs Florida Weekly:


“That isolation is something that’s definitely been noticed by Carrie Keohane, co-founder of the Visuality support center for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth in Lee County.

“A lot of gays and lesbians don’t understand the transgender thing,” she says.

Ms. Keohane’s child was born a male, and at 16, legally changed his name to the androgynous Reiyn (sounds like rain). At first, he said he was gay, “and we said, ‘That’s OK. That’s no big deal.’”

When Ms. Keohane and her husband, James, found out that Reiyn actually felt like a girl inside, “We didn’t know what it meant, to be honest,” she says. “We were astonished. We knew Reiyn was very tormented. At that age, kids don’t talk to their parents about a lot of that … and sometimes, they’re not even sure.”

Now 19, Reiyn recently began taking hormones and transitioning into a female. It’s been a long journey to reach this fork in the road with their only child. The sad truth is that Reiyn has only one friend, Ms. Keohane says.

But Reiyn’s family is supportive. “My family and my husband’s family have been great. They accept Reiyn no matter how she shows up,” she says. They put her on their health insurance policy, and Ms. Keohane takes Reiyn shopping to offer guidance on makeup and clothing styles.

“It’s tricky taking Reiyn shopping. You get looks when you’re shopping in the lingerie department with your son,” says Ms. Keohane, and jokes that the easiest place to blend in is Walmart. “It’s been a wild ride.”

One might think the “wild ride” in the lingerie department had ended with the driver stabbing an innocent female victim over thirty times, but no, this would underestimate the global reach of the power of “panties” among men.

The international multi-billionaire law firm DLA Piper and the ACLU announced “Victory!” today: that Reiyn Keohane will be permitted to wear “panties” during his twelve year incarceration in a men’s prison. Because transgender.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker cited the power of “panties” at least eight times in his decision [PDF] that men who stab women over thirty times must have the right to wear sexy lady clothes and force correctional officials to play along with their autogynephilic fantasies.

Gay website The Advocate celebrates his “victory”, never mentioning his victim or his crime.

LESBIANS DO NOT SUPPORT THE ACLU.

LESBIANS DO NOT SUPPORT THE LAW FIRM OF DLA PIPER.

LESBIANS DO NOT SUPPORT THE ADVOCATE WEBSITE.

HalfAsianBob #fundie reddit.com

Here's a letter to my dead Asian whore of a mother that I wrote, I hope you can read this and see the rage I have

Dear mom, you dirty fucking Asian cunt, white worshipping piece of shit whore,

I'm so very fucking sorry that Asian men weren't good enough for you. Again, I'd like to congratulate you on the fact that you gave me a white face that I could pass through this fucked up racist world, and I'd like to thank you for being so fucking incredibly forwardly thinking that you decided to fuck only white men; now, unfortunately, because of genetics, neither I nor my brother could ever have your coveted blonde hair or blue eyes, but that's alright, because it's good to know that deep down, you resent us because we look whiter than you, and because deep down, you still resent us for reminding you that no matter how much white sperm you took, you could never be white. Neither could I.

Oh, how sorry I am, you whore, you fucking degenerate whore, that you told the world that you hated Asian men, but yet you gave birth to two of us. I'm so fucking sorry that Asian men offended you SO much that you had to give into white supremacy and let the world know that you thought that the white master was king, and that his bastard offspring, both worse and better at the same time, was nothing more but the result of a conquest.

Don't feed me that fucking Asian men are patriarchal BULLSHIT. IT'S JUST FUCKING BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT. White patriarchy is and will always be the be all and end all of patriarchy and you gave into it because it got your ratchet fucking pussy wet. That's all it was, you WHORE. You brought me into this world as a slave, a son of a slave master and a plantation female Uncle Tom; that's what you were. You, and all the other ugly brown whores in my family, tell yourselves over and over that you think Asian men are patriarchal, but all it is is that you like thing white cocks are better, and because you have a pussy and are able to use it to get whatever the fuck you want (thanks female privilege) you could get yourself a nice white man - and lo and behold you did - and this one was a beta Christian idiot who thought that you were God's answer to white women not wanting him. Oh, you played your cards right, didn't you mommy, didn't you.

Look at you. You're dead now. You're buried in the ground and have been for 15 years. My little white head tore you open and you got some bad blood from that, didn't ya? So sorry about that - you could have lived, couldn't you? But once your hormones wore down and you realize the mistake you had made, marrying a broke white guy who loved Jesus more than you - then you decided to end your life, didn't you? Isn't that what you did? You abandoned your two children - your two little half chinks. Now look at us. I can barely work I'm suicidal and depressed; my brother is bedridden and insane, he'll never work another day in his fucking life.

Look at us. LOOK AT US. YOU DID THIS TO US.

ALL YOU ASIAN WOMEN WHORES DID THIS TO US.

And it's not Asian men who are saying this. Asian men are too fucking naive to see what's really going on. But I see what's going on. You fucking sluts eye fuck me on the train every day; to you I'm just another tall white guy. But if you knew that I had won the genetic lottery and didn't come out looking Asian, oh boy, how quickly you would change your mind. I'm saying this. One of your precious "white / mixed race" children is saying this. I'm the patriarch, you fucking sluts. I AM. LOOK AT ME.

YOU MADE ME INTO THIS.

FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU, MOTHER. YOU THINK I HAVE KEPT THIS INSIDE ME FOR SO LONG? YOU THINK YOUR ACTIONS WOULDN'T HAVE REPURCUSSIONS? I'M ON THE BRINK OF SUICIDE EVERY FUCKING DAY FOR FIFTEEN GODDAMN YEARS, YOUR ELDEST SON IS BEDRIDDEN AND MENTALLY ILL AND OH, SHIT, WHAT A GREAT IDEA TO JUST SAY FUCK YOU TO ASIAN MEN, YET YOUR OWN SONS ARE ASIAN MEN?
YOUR OWN FUCKING SONS?

Read this, Asian women, READ THIS. I FUCKING DARE YOU.

I FUCKING DARE YOU TO READ IT.

And before you go off calling me Elliot Rodgers, at least you recognize that Elliot Rodgers was a little half-chink like me; the product of YOU. I am no harm to anyone, just myself. You all deserve this fucking hell on earth. Every single one of you cunts should be forced to live on earth for a million years. And I wish, I wish from the bottom of my fucking heart, that every one of your kids has exactly the same problems as me. Fuck you mom, fuck you and your dyed hair and colored contacts.
Fuck every last ounce of you. It took me a long time to say it but I said it. FUCK. YOU.

Oh yeah, I said it. Go and cry about misogyny, you whores. I'm your chosen one - America's little mixed race darlings, us magical mixed race unicorns that are nothing more than the products of aggressive sexual selection - that's me. And I say fuck you. Fuck you to hell. Burn in every last bit of hell.

Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D. #fundie christiannews.net

Silas:

Who the heck do you think you are to try to abash the T-man with such words of unimmensity in so a multitudinous manner?! The Christian eats milksops like you for breakfast relative to the simpleminded ideas presented within your infantile posting. Relative to your simpletonian duplicity, have you forgotten that the Christian follows the Bible? In that respect, we have Romans chapter 1 within our KJV to instruct us on the role of male sodomites and their female counterpart, the lesbos, to wit:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Our Bible says much more relative to the place these depraved heathens hold within the Godly scheme of things.

If you want to point out some "problems", then you need to do so relative your problems of understanding the simple Christian Biblical facts and dynamics,ok? OK! Here's one: the Christian doesn't have "gay" or "straight" friends! Our Bible is against ALL manner of carnality, save for that used for procreation. Our Bible also prohibit us from mixing together with unbelievers. Therefore, the Christian is not and would not be friends with any deviants! Got it?

The Christian also knows who is on their way to Hell! Because the Christian Bible teaches us to JUDGE, including within the Matthean verses of 7:1-3 which call for RIGHTEOUS (a.k.a. Biblical) judgement, when read and understood in historical-grammatical context. The Bible tells us that sodomites, lesbos, and other deviants are that way BECAUSE they are not Saved! Therefore, the simple logical syllogism is that all of these pagans are on their way to Hell! Got it? You can thank the Christian later for enlightening you relative to these simple Biblical facts.

The Fundie of the Year Awards

Fundie of the Year Awards Voting #announcement fstdt.com

Fundie Of the Year

The big one, selected from the top ranked fundies of the year we have three options that I figure almost everyone has to know.

Options:

1: Anna Diehl
The sinner in the hand of a vengeful god, and apparently quite content with that. Easily our most honest and disturbingly coherent fundie in years. A sample of her work:

Of course all of these theories are based on a refusal to accept that God could find true delight in torturing people. Well, tough. HE DOES. Are we really so arrogant that we think we can define who God must be, or that we can change truths about Him simply because we don’t like them? If our Creator gets high off of torturing His enemies for eternity—which He clearly does—then we need to face this fact square on and ask the Holy Spirit to help us deal with it. ...

Full Text Found Here

2: CAAMIB
And more other accounts than I even care to name, this guy... I actually feel kinda sorry for if his world really looks like that to him. But I sure as hell wouldn't let him inflict that on others.
I have and I still believe I'd have sex with a woman against her consent. The difference now is that when I wrote that I thought that rape is forceful sex against a woman's consent. I was wrong, since I didn't know enough history and was brainwashed my feminist propaganda.
Full Text Found Here

3: David J. Stewart
One of our more prolific fundies, both in what gets posted here and what he writes in general. Quoted in all three categories this year and frankly could have been nominated in either of the ones I'm doing awards for, but thankfully not quite all three categories on the site. I checked.
Religion is the WORST thing that has ever happened to this world; Countless Billions of souls have been doomed to Hellfire by false religion. Learn what the Bible has to say on the matter. I expose many false religions... not to be unkind... but because the truth has been hidden from the world's masses. Just remember, religion didn't die on the cross for you—Jesus Christ did!
Full Text Found Here


Conspiracy Theorist of the Year

It was a good year for insanity, and certain efforts should be recognized.

Options:

1: Anonymous Cowards, of GodLike Productions
I'm cheating here, but they're also the group with the highest fundie index on CSTDT for last year. The anon comments over on GLP are amazing, not always in a good way, but amazing.
I have recently had an epiphany about dinosaurs that makes perfect sense! You would have to be spiritual minded to see it so I suspect many scientific minded people will tell me I've lost it...that's okay.

Here was my idea, just as the fallen angels have manipulated with genetics to claim their own creations (and to piss God off), I suspect they took God's creation of birds and genetically altered them to make their own creation. That is why scientists claim dinosaurs evolved into birds because so much of the genetic code of birds is in them.
...

Full Text Found Here

2: Patrick Scrivener
Someone who tends to run the lines between fundie and conspiracy theory, but I think conspiracy wins out on his top quotes. Special thanks to Yossarian Lives for bringing us so many of these.
Before the advent of MI6 sponsored communism in Russia, the Orthodox Church completely rejected the heliocentricity of Galileo and the evolutionary myth of Druid Charles Darwin. They also rejected the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX which completely condemned all scientific progress—except advances in spying and cryptology.
...

Full Text Found Here

3: Wiley Brooks
Odd one out, as he's only had one approved quote, but it was pretty amazing. Still not sure what if anything it means, so let's all stare in mild confusion.

In order to understand why I have chosen these foods you must first know how the human bodies descended into the 3rd dimensional world in first place. This is not our natural home. Being here as long as we have been was not intentional. We didn’t plan to stay here permanently. You could say it was purely by accident that we ended up getting stuck in this 3d world. The Earth, without a doubt, is the most beautiful planet in the Milky Way galaxy and that is why it was "the" vacation spot of the galaxy for millions of years. There was always a constant stream of visitors coming here from Worlds and Galaxies far and wide.
...

Full Text Found Here


Quote of the Year

A new hit from an old favorite, a disturbing conspiracy and the funniest damn thing I saw this year. These are the top quotes from each category, which is the best?

Options:

1: AV1611VET, from Christian Forums
I hadn't seen much from him in quite some time, but he came back strong with this one.

First of all, up until the Tower of Babel, they had to speak some language.

What language was that?

What's the best candidate?
...
Thus we have all peoples, nations, languages and tongues, standing before the Judgement Seat, being read to from the KJB.

Thus if they speak Jacobean English in Heaven, I assume they spoke it on earth at first.
Full Text Found Here

2: Diana Napolis
I honestly have no idea what to say here, but entirely believe every WTF?! was warranted.
The Enemy has been busy forcing others to have sex with them. They have a method of copying sex responses and placing these responses within penises and artificial vaginal canals. They copied my vaginal canal and orgasmic response, and placed that response into other artificial canals so that the enemy could insert it into themselves.
...

Full Text Found Here

3: white male, from Beyond Highbrow
It won an award within 30 seconds of me starting to read it and has given an entire demographic a bad name. I don't really even need ot quote that much of it to show why it's here. Poe or not, funny shit.
um nope. I am a proud white male with an 18 inch cock, thicker than a gallon milk can. I have a pedigree going back 10 thousand years to the Aryan-Teutonics of Asgard and Atlantis, and the government is so frightened of my innate caucasoid potential that they made me file a non disclosure agreement of my superior white male dna supreme genetics.

You see white men are actually from the distant island of atlantis which was floating in the tuberclizician Stratosphere of Earth, which Gulliver christened as Laputa.
...

Full Text Found Here


Best Cult from an 80s TV show

This is a special request I could not help but follow up on. And as a single nomination vote you can enter 1 to vote for it, or 0 to vote against it and tell us if the following is the Best Cult from an 80s TV Show.

Option:

1: Wulf Ingessunu
Woden's Folk is invariably criticised and attacked by those whose aim is to discredit anyone who opposes the Global Order.
...
One of the main targets has been The Hooded Man Prophecy since this is an easy one to get at since it has no 'historical' authenticity - so we are led to believe.
...
Firstly, yes this does come from the TV series Robin of Sherwood and was no doubt made up for the series. But that does not invalidate this as a prophecy, but we can only recognise it as such through the knowledge of what its hidden meaning is.
...
In order to understand that The Hooded Man Prophecy is valid you need to understand the above ideas clearly, because without a knowledge of what an avatar is this will never be understood. Only through recognising that a god can actually incarnate in the flesh will we be able to understand what I am trying to say
....

Full Text Found Here


Pseudo-Intellectual of the Year

We had a few nominations for this request, but remember if they are not worth the honor you can always vote 0 to deny it to anyone.

Options:

1: John C. Wright
Despair is the key. It explains nearly everything that is so puzzling about the madness of modern life, the pack of self-contradictory dogmas that make up the default assumptions of the Dark Ages in which we live.

They have nothing else. No wonder they are bitter. No wonder they are irrational. No wonder they lie like dogs. No wonder they boast. No wonder they are full of envy and malice. No wonder they kill babies in the womb and fete socialist dictators and mass murderers. No wonder they love death. No wonder they admire, protect and love Islamic terrorists. No wonder they admire, protect, and love sexual perversion.

It is because they have nothing else. They live in a world of darkness, without hope, with nothing but their seven great friends to sustain them: pride, which they call self esteem; envy, which they call social justice; wrath, which they call activism and protest; sloth, which they call enlightenment; gluttony, which they call health food and legalization of recreational drugs; greed, which they call fairness in taxation; lust, which they call sexual liberation.
Full Text Found Here

2: W. F. Price
As for young women, higher education is an enormous waste in most cases. They spend their time learning from lesbian pornographers, drinking, whoring and learning to look down on their male peers even as they debase themselves. The old idea that it will help them find a suitable mate is so outdated as to be laughable, but it’s what keeps parents paying for college tuition for their daughters: they hope that daddy’s little girl will get hitched to some conscientious beta male instead of knocked up by a hoodlum. This is the single biggest reason parents send their daughters to college, and it’s a gamble that will only pay off about half the time these days as the female to male ratio approaches three to two at universities (not all college-educated men marry college-educated women, or marry at all). Not a good bet for roughly $100k, but it supports legions of hard-left ideologues, which explains the enthusiasm for the failing system in mainstream media outlets.
Full Text Found Here

I feel compelled to note, lesbian pornography was involved in my college experience, but not in the way Mr. Price is concerned about it. Funny story actually. Anyway, This year's voting form:

FOTY [X]
COTY [X]
QOTY [X]
BCF80TV [X]
POTY [X]

Submit the above as your comment, replacing the X with the number you vote for in that category. If you want to vote against the existing options enter the number 0, if you don't want to vote at all either leave the X or erase the line. Counts will be done at the end of the month.

John McClain #fundie hbr.org

Men and women are valuable in different ways. For the most part men have historically been the innovators, leaders, and geniuses of society because of their sexual drive and the fact that unlike women sex is not given to them but it is something that must be earned. Men's drive for sexual relations with women pushes them to succeed, innovate, and create. If women stop feeding the sexual fantasy that men desire or if men are able to get some form of sex without a relationship, men tune out, turn off, and drop out and civilization goes into decline. For the most part women don't need to work as hard to get sex by becoming well known for something you contributed for to get people to respect you. When men reach the height of their careers or elevate in social status and power more opportunities for relationships with women become available and this is an ego boost for men. Same with comedy, notice how female comedians are not as funny as male comedians. They don't need to be because they don't need to be admired or respected to get sex. It's evolution in action. If you are a guy and can do something amazing you have a greater likelihood of attracting females and siring more off spring. Women don't really need to prove themselves in this way to get sex because men just want to know if you're healthy, fit, and can bear offspring. In this day and age more jobs can be done by women, so many have decided to find a sperm donor and raise children on their own but their is no innate need or drive to go above and beyond because reproductively they're more conservative whereas men it's high risk and high reward because a man if very successful can sire far more children than a woman who is limited by her reproductive years whereas a man can potentially sire hundreds of children.

Rev Michael Bresciani #fundie americanprophet.org

Infantophobia and Homophobia - Reality vs. Perception
by Rev Michael Bresciani, April 10, 2010

Infantophobia is a neologistic word whose life expectancy may be no more predictable than the unborn-children it makes reference to but, the word homophobia has a life all of its own, even if in reality it does not deserve one.

Recently attention has been focused on the merging lines of reality and perception in the American psyche. Studies show that those lines are both merging and even blending together in our national life. The effects of Hollywood films, TV, gaming, the internet and fictional literature have left some Americans in a hazy middle of the road lurch where reality and perception have overlapped and, in some cases perception has fully overtaken reality.

One study showed that for millions of Americans their knowledge of a historical event is so colored by Hollywood that they would discard the history they learned in classrooms and substitute it completely with an altered Hollywood version of the same event.

The effect of TV is even greater. Entire political preferences and moral stands are often derived from the tube and the prevailing wisdom of the day is reflected in the common verbiage of a nation that seems to have no other underpinnings on which to stand. If we are what we eat then we are also what we have been feeding our brains.

In an online video presentation of Michele Obama speaking to the LBGT (Lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender) she used the word homophobia to describe anyone's resistance to the general acceptance of any and all of these sexual preferences.

Michele is reinforcing the idea that some untold number of Americans are cringing and trembling in mortal fear of the neighborhood going to pieces because of the un-closeting of the new hordes of emerging homosexuals. Here is where a better definition is needed and where perception should be given a jolt of reality.

Even if, as President Obama has said Americans are, "clinging to their Bibles" and using quotes from an "obscure passage," the use of the word homophobia is hardly appropriate. The indiscriminate use of this word has long since passed out of the realm of reality and is now enjoying its debut in the fantasy world of hyperbole and perception.

The word, homophobia, has already become the dusty and faded bulb we pull out year after year to hang on the Christmas tree; it is no longer a real fruit growing from a real tree planted by any national emerging social trend.

Oddly the passage many are said to be referring to is not obscure but is 30 years newer than the gospels themselves and was penned by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Ro 1:26-28)

In spite of this passage it is very hard to find anyone who actually has passed from acquiescence to this verse on to hatred of homosexuals. Since I rarely quote myself and risk crossing the fragile line between journalistic license and pure narcissism I think it is safe to remind my readers of something I've previously written.

In an article entitled The PC Wars of 2010 and Beyond - Spiritual wickedness in high places, I said "In over forty years of discussion with Christians about homosexuals I have never met one single person who said they were afraid of homosexuals. It is that fact that drove me to search for the root cause of the entire debate between the gays and the church."

I didn't include the fact that in that same forty year period I met countless homosexuals that do suffer from theophobia or Christophobia. They are not always afraid of God but rather they fear that Paul and others who are said to have spoken in God's stead were correct and that God meant exactly what he said. They respond to this fear by arguing against the plenary verbal inspiration of scriptures; even though most of them don't even know what this terminology means.

God doesn't have an opinion on anything but he does establish laws that will not be changed by anyone's opinion or dis-belief; be it the LBGT or Michele Obama. The best they can do is to raise the same question that the arch deceiver raised in the Garden of Eden and proposed to Eve which was, "hath God said?" (Ge 3:1) Nothing new here.

The root cause of infantophobia can be easily ascertained by looking at the reams of statistical materials that are readily available since the inception of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade. It is not for reasons of incest, birth defects or rape that most women seek an abortion but according to every major study it is the fear that they will not be able to support a child.

Women are afraid that they will not get an education and be denied job opportunities and that an unwanted child would compromise their future chances at getting anywhere above the poverty level in life. The key word here is fear, is there a phobia for this kind of fear? Wait a while; the PC doctors will have one in due season. In the meantime didn't we all assume that the phrase "land of the free and home of the brave" included our women? If ignoring fear is what makes greatness, heroes and amazing Americans then what does a long list of phobias make?

In the search for the root cause of infantophobia one fact consistently rears its ugly head. When encountered, it stifles the search for any further answers. It is such a staggering revelation that it makes the difference between the perceived problems of homophobia look like extraneous nonsense when compared to the realities of this scourge known as abortion.

What is that fact? It is the comparison between the actual real-time results and the disparity that exists between homophobia and infantophobia. The 2007 FBI statistics on "hate crimes" said that gays were called names 335 times; they were shoved or pushed 448 times and were done bodily harm 242 times. This is exactly 1025 times too many for anyone and there is no excuse for it but let's not stop there, let's go on to the comparison and the important question it raises.

Infantophobia resulted in the deaths of 50,000,000 unborn babies in America since 1973. That's fifty million in case you have trouble with commas and zeroes. That is about 4,000 (four thousand) per day on average. Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?

Did you miss the question? Let me repeat it. "Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?"

I won't appendage this piece with my usual scriptural selection but rather, I will resort to the language of children, at least those who were allowed citizenship. Phobia-Schmobia: grow up America and return to your senses!

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

(Amos continues to conflate homosexuality and narcissism, claiming scripture says so)

Amos Moses:
Romans (this entire passage is about NARCISSISM)
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (LESBIANS ADDRESSED)
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (HOMOSEXUALS ADDRESSED)
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (NARCISSISM ADDRESSED)
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:(MORE NARCISSISM)
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.(MORE NARCISSISM and the PENALTY)

SanGeronimo:
Not one of those passages LINKS narcissism with homosexuality, they are addressed as SEPARATE things. It is YOU who is attempting to link them. Your scripture IS NOT doing that.

Amos Moses:
they are discussed in the exact same part of scripture ...... and you are not a competent judge of scripture ............ they are not separate issues

SanGeronimo:
They are discussed in the exact same part of scripture. I don't DISPUTE that.
BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If in some part of scripture they condemn murder and in the next sentence they condemn rape, does it mean rape and murder are the same thing? Are you always this obtuse?

Amos Moses:
they are inextricably linked ..........

SanGeronimo:
So a rapist is always a murderer too?

Amos Moses:
YUP .....