Trojan Condoms: Men are pigs if they don't wear a Trojan

That may well be the most offensive thing I have ever seen.

It is beyond my comprehension to think that we now live in a culture that is so contemptuous of men, that this advertisement was actually approved, produced, and paid for by a company selling condoms.

Imagine if an advertisement depicted women as COWS who are reluctant to use their diaphrams, or take their birth control pills?

Notice that when the guy TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for sex by going into the john and buying a condom, he morphs from being a pig into being an attractive if pussified young man ---

and, the girlie skank at the bar now wants him.

You know what, gentlemen?

Even the Nazis in WWII in Germany could not make better propaganda than this!

As George Orwell observed --- "Some pigs are more equal than others!"

As an aside, notice that the commercial also implies "men always want/are ready for sex". It also doesn't say much about the intelligence or sexual preferences of good-looking women, since they walk into an establisment containing actual pigs in the first place.

Actually however, I would like to make a scientific observation, based upon my repeatedly scrutinizing and studying the video..that all things considered, this commercial and whoever created it can
****SUCK MY DICK**** (and I won't be wearing a Trojan).
-ax

...is already on this one I believe. I am going to run a article on it through my little blog and do what I can to help.

Like I said the manginas and women are pulling out all the punches now because like all dictators they are starting to see their regime fall apart before their eyes. It's like when the titanic sunk; those frequent puncture holes are a bitch.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

The idea of this commercial is simple: if you are driven by your lustful desires - then you are a lustful pig. To be honest, I don't think that this idea is totally wrong. ))

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

Let's get a commercial going for gags for women... we could show all the women as female dogs yappin' constantly at men, with men just plugging their ears. We could tell women that they need to evolve and wear the gags in order to be better mates for men. After all, if you're driven by an instinct to just yack and criticize rather than communicate and consider someone else's opinions and feelings, then you're an ignorant bitch right?

No?!

You're not dealing with the facts of actual human emotion and desire; such things are hardwired into the human race. The desire to procreate is a HUMAN desire, not one of a lustful pig you fucking idiot.

All human beings have that desire, unless something is wrong with them. Women are more sexual than men are--and use birth control even less than men--thus the women in the room should have been shown as "pigs" as well.

This does not excuse not using proper protection but that does not make you a pig. If it does--as I said--all of the women should have been pigs too since women usually always rely on the man to buy protection.

Matt come on man these motherfuckers keep coming in trying to back up feminist belief daily and spamming the site with viagra ads and such. Cut their rope already and send them back to Kim "wannabe-a" MAN-dy.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

Man, you are too narrow-minded to discuss with you.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

From the MGTOW site(and numerous others whom have adopted this VERY informative article on tactics used by women and male gynocentrists):

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Men's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

The big difference between men and women is that men are much more open about their sexual desires, and women are much more hypocritical. Women have also learned to use their sexuality to manipulate men. Only a woman would mutilate her body in order to get things from the opposite sex and then blame the opposite sex because she had to mutilate her body. If men are pigs it is hard to describe what women are.

Here is a site that I use often. This Anti-shame tactics has helped me out in many cases where I have been attacked by angry feminists for simply stating truths and facts. I was most recently told I sounded "bitter" because I was speaking my mind about things like the "wage gap" and other such topics. (This is from one of my wifes feminist friends.) *beepbeepbeep* Code RED!!! LoL, I simply went to dumpyourwifenow.com. Copy and Pasted code red.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:

* “You’re bitter!”
* “You need to get over your anger at women.”
* “You are so negative!”

Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

And after she read this I got the usual disassociated agreement. Where she see's where I am coming from but she is still sensitive to the plight of women. I still count that as a win for me because she has not been dumb enough to come back and try to cut me down on my blog for having opinions that don't fall in line with hers.

If you want to read the entire article here is the link.

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/

...is nothing new and does not dissuade me from throwing a monkey wrench in their misandric antics in the least since as you see men are VERY aware of the female/mangina anti-male shaming tactics. It's nothing but more attacks on male biology which shows just how stupid these women are.

Why even sit around creating alters just to argue over shit that men already know are lies? Get a life bitches.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

I don't remember the exact subject of the thread, but it had something to do with women's rights activists (including many males) going to a foreign country (in Africa I think); of course they were using the Duluth model, etc. and applying it to this foreign "primitive" culture to stop supposed rampant domestic violence by males there.

Anyhow some of us guys posted about how the situation was screwed-up there, and apparently one of their idiot compadres started responding to our posts..got in a debate with some of us..saying things like "I hear your anger, but..". She (he?) was definitely using shaming tactics against us, calling us angry etc., in the debate. Check the arcives, it was within the last couple months.

I'm not sure "shaming tactics" completely describes the mentality these people use. Someone needs to come up with a more inclusive term, which incoporates the whiney psychotherapist-type, relativistic, female-centered thinking these clowns use. Just my opinion.

-ax

MrReality,

While no one should be called a pig for having sexual desires, I did want to say in response to your comment to the other user that if someone doesn't want to have sex or procreate, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them. Asexuality is a legitimate orientation, and some sexual people choose to be celibate or "child-free."

Again, that doesn't mean what the other user said about being a "lustful pig" is right or excusable, but I just think you should take the groups of people I mentioned into account before you make generalizations about the human race.

http://www.asexuality.org

Since it's obvious that by "other user" you mean me, let me correct your wrong understanding of my words about "lustful pigs": it was only a try to interpret the idea that authors of the commercial have put into that video and a try to reconstruct their logic behind that idea.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

Hopefully certain guys on this site won't get on your case, as they have previous women who posted on this site. Also I agree there's nothing wrong with abstaining.
-ax

Thanks, ax!

Nbdspcl, I understood that you were commenting on the intent of the commercial, but you did say "to be honest I don't think that's entirely wrong" in your original comment. Maybe you should clarify what you think.

...feminism is. My best friend/fuck Buddy Alex and I have agreed that we don't judge based on anything except character.

> Maybe you should clarify what you think.

Female MRA, I think that there is a very big difference between a "correct idea" and a "not totally wrong idea".

I'm convinced that sexual continence is a great thing, but only if the person who practices continence has good ways for sublimation his/her sexual libido. If a person doesn't have such ways, then sex for him/her is a "right thing".

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

1. Asexuality has not been classified as a legitimate orientation. Many disagree with that hypothesis and see it as a disorder.

"Sexual Dysfunction May Cause Asexual Behavior
Disinterest in sex also may be due to a sexual dysfunction; that is, a psychological or organic condition that blocks normal sexual behaviors and responses. Specifically, in the case of complete disinterest in sex, the condition may be diagnosed as sexual desire disorder.

In sexual desire disorder the individual has a persistent absence of sexual fantasies or desire for engaging in sex. Further, the individual exhibits an intense aversion to either heterosexual or homosexual genital sexual contact.

Additionally, persistent failure in sexual response may lead to the avoidance of sex or sexual situations. This can occur at any point in life but tends to occur more frequently among the elderly. These conditions can have an emotional origin, of varying severities, or they may have an organic cause. Often they are treatable through sex therapy and/or biomedical intervention.

Intensive desire disorders, however, may reflect complicated psychological problems that are difficult to treat. In addition, some individuals may be biologically incapable of sexual interest or involvement in sexual activity and, although members of a sexual species, are themselves asexual. This, however, is a rare condition and most forms of sexual dysfunction respond to therapeutic intervention."

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/asexual.html

2. Someone "choosing" to be celibate does not mean they do not have sexual urges. It simply means they do not adhere to them. Humans have always fought against their natural urges. That does not mean these urges are not natural nor does it mean that they do not occur.

3. That asexuality is a "legitimate orientation" has never been proven, yet you readily use it like all dumb women. Just so you know you cannot use a site called asexuality.org to attempt to prove the claims of asexuality. That would be like using a KKK site to prove what the Klan has to say about blacks and jews. Until asexuality is proven to be a "legitimate orientation" your argument is rendered null and void. Just like your undercover female friend's argument.

4. To debate with two numbskulls over their politically correct, gender neutral ideas is ludicrous. I'm ashamed of myself that I took it this far with you two morons. Thus this will be my last post to you on this subject. Try talking to the PC men here--there are a few--I am sure you will win over some converts. If you don't you can always bring in another member of the FEMspeak brigade and say something else fucking stupid.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

Just so you know you cannot use a site called asexuality.org to attempt to prove the claims of asexuality.

Saying that, at the same time you're backing your opinion about asexuality citing "sexpedia". With the same success you could cite what condom makers think about asexuality.

Unfortunately there are many blockheads who call themselves "MRA activists", and they do much more harm to MRA movement than feminists.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

Saying that, at the same time you're backing your opinion about asexuality citing "sexpedia". With the same success you could cite what condom makers think about asexuality.

Actually the site which was quoted is Discovery Health. That's legitimate, unlike some purple website on asexual hypothetical beliefs.

The source cited--by myself--is located under the Sexual Health Center which is where it should be. Asexual still deals with one's supposed SEXual orientation you nitwit.

You really are fucking stupid.

Damn! I broke my own rule twice. I'll make this my final answer to the mental midgets from FEMworld.

P.S. Even if for a moment we "pretend" that your asexual as a "legitimate sexual orientation" hypothesis is an indisputable fact *starts pretending*--which it is not as we speak--you still paint yourself a fool by claiming the majority of human beings whom DO feel sexual urges to procreate(which are quite natural)--and follow them(using protection or not)--are somehow "lustful pigs." *Make believe is over*

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

Unfortunately you does not have enough brains for understanding the difference between scientific facts and what is written in "Discovery Health".

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

I think I'll blog about this and showcase her stupidity a little more.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

"I think that there is a very big difference between a "correct idea" and a "not totally wrong idea"."

Oh?
A VERY BIG difference?

nbdspcl, that is precisely the problem.

When men turn a blind eye and allow the 90% that they know is wrong to exist for the good of the 10% that they believe to be acceptable, they do a disservice to all.

I think the thread got off track...
I don't think nbdspcl was saying that all people that are sexual are pigs, and people that are asexual aren't. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I thought he was saying something more along the lines of mindlessly following sexual desire. (Even so though, I don't agree with what he wrote)

I'm not really sure how the idea of asexuality being a "legitimate" orientation, or not is relevant, though. Homosexuality was once also considered a mental illness, and now, it's generally not... public and scientific ideas change on these things, and may change again in the future, but people will do what they are inclined to do regardless of labels and scientific approval...

I agree with 2 important things that you said, though...

1) Sexual desire is a natural human trait, not just male or female, but human. Humanity here should be taken on the whole. In life there are always variations. That's the nature of life (especially sexually based life, ironically). Most importantly: without sexual desire, humanity would likely not exist.

2) Claiming that people that act on sexual desire are "Lustful Pigs" is wrong.

Let me get this straight. A condom manufacturer, which obviously depends on men buying their product to stay in business, insults the very customer base that keeps them in business??????

What marketing genius thought this garbage up? Hillazilla must be moonlighting in the marketing department of Trojan!!!!

This marketing approach doesn't make any damned sense at all!

Women are not the enemy, per se, but yet, they very much are. Women are relativists and they are passive feminists. A evil person who is passive, is still an evil person.

You do have an extremely small number of women that, when push comes to shove, don't sell out on men and back the Sistahood, but those numbers are TINY. As I say, a woman does not need to state explicitly that they are "anti-men's rights" or "anti-men's freedom" but when it really comes down to it, they harbour those thoughts.

The most anti-male legislation, literature and policies have been devised and sustained by women. More female political power, as we have seen in the last 40 years, has led to more and more anti-male thoughts bred in the female mind converting into actions. A female President (and female top-level Administration to boot) will make things considerably worse. It's not necessarily any bias against women, but the record of women in politics is that: preferences for women, indifference or enslavement of men. The record of female compassion for males in any sort of organised structure is, by any measure, terrible.

Even the women who proclaim them to be female MRAs value the female-only privilages in the Divorce and Criminal Courts that feminism has earned them. They value the status quo of female preference in education and commerce. My opinion is that most of these women feel a certain amount of sympathy for men, but as for real conviction for the cause of men's rights - it's just not there. And no way do they want to see Divorce law (which allows them access to Systematic Wealth Transfer) or Court bias changed.

Look at any advertising campaign for products aimed at women, read the most popular women's magazines, e.g. Cosmo, etc., watch women's television programming, e.g. Desperate Housewives... What do we see? Direct, unveiled misandric, direct insults against men and masculinity. And that's the stuff that sells. Does this tell you anything about the female psyche?

The way I see it Feminism (which views men as the Nazis did the Jews - i.e. it seeks to destroy us) is our enemy. Most women are passive feminists, and when informed of the facts they continue to be passive feminists. A very large number are actively, publically feminist also (how many times have you heard a women wail "I hate men" - it's practically ingrained into popular language). Therefore, women, as passive or active supporters of feminism, are our enemy.

Oh, and "not wanting children" and "asexuality" are not the same thing.

It is true that there is such a thing as a "female perspective" on things; and that women are happy to get special priveleges, etc. But that may just be human nature.

Here is the bottom line the way I see it, hope it doesn't upset any women readers:

1)The philosopher Schopenhauer was correct when he said, "the fundamental defect of women, is the lack of a sense of justice". A good example is Bader-Ginsberg, she should not be on the Supreme Court. She is unjust. Pelosi should not be where she is, she is unjust.
It is probably more correct to say, that women find it virtually impossible to separate reason from emotion. In fact, emotion seems to be inherently bound up with everything women do. As a result, women become very upset when a man takes an analytical outlook on an issue.

2) The fundamental hatred of men by women, is due to the primal fear women have of being rejected sexually. When a man asks a woman out, and eventually they end up in bed, there is always the chance that the man will reject the woman after sex, for example looking down his nose at the woman as if she is a piece of trash, or showing emabarassment when he is out with her in public; or by cheating on her.
This is also why it is virtually impossible for a woman to take the initiative in dating, e.g. asking the man out.

I am reminded of a Playboy "letter to the editor" I read years ago. A woman angrily wrote to the magazine, saying that she had determined that men were not "ready" (as a class) to be asked out, because she had asked a man for a date and he had turned her down. A couple months later, a man wrote in a response saying, no, that she was wrong - the actual case is that probably the man simply did not want to go out with her (maybe he found her unattractive), and that women (as a class) were not ready to accept rejection.
This is still true. But as long as only men are the initiators, women will continued to be frustrated when they see prince charming but feel they cannot approach him. So they settle.

3) Woman's primal awe of the penis, penis envy as a child, which becomes converted to hatred of men as the woman matures. Then if the same woman is rejected once or more as above, and has an overly-sensitive reaction, this creates a trauma in her psyche, and can result in anything from mental illness to radical feminism.

Regarding this, I find it humorous when women maintain the (Freudian) idea of the castration complex, but reject the concept of penis envy out of hand. If there is one great intellect of our time, whom people quote and borrow from piecemeal, but have not actually read, it was Freud..for it is apparent that the women (and men) who prefer to keep one idea but not the other, utterly fail to realize that Freud clearly stated, that the castration complex was merely the manifestation of penis envy in the male. Thus one cannot keep the former without also the latter.

-ax

Pigs are intelligent animals. I could see them in a public service commercial advocating joining the marriage strike, but crooning over condoms is too undignified for a pig.

Every woman is a feminist or a latent feminist, it's a proven fact. But we must not forget about male feminists: it's they who do all the harm. Had it not been for male feminists, the problem with female ones could be solved within 5 minutes.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

Get real, nbdspcl. Women are the major part of the problem, vis a vis feminism, and men are the minor part. Also, don't dignify the term "male feminist" - refer to these men simply as naive Marxists or collaborationists. Ever hear of a Jewish Nazi? No, I didn't think so either.

It is absolutely lucidrous to say that if there were no "male feminists" the problem would be solved "in 5 minutes". Feminism took root in female minds NOT male ones. As I said, the most anti-male policies of the VAWA and Title IX quotas, among others were devised by WOMEN, not MEN. The "Rapex", which is a weapon against male genitalia, was invented by a WOMAN. The advertising campaign that Trojan is running is from a company run by a WOMAN.

Through economics (because giving women power = more profit), men tag along with feminism's demands - but it's not their creation.

Are you a woman, by the way, nbdspcl?

"It is true that there is such a thing as a "female perspective" on things; and that women are happy to get special priveleges, etc. But that may just be human nature."

Indeed, axolotl. Much of women's passive support for female-only privalges that feminism has earned (such as Divorce law and education policy) comes down to greedy self-interest, which is a universal human trait. Perhaps even there's a "selfish gene" mechanism going on among those with a female gender-chromasome configuration.

But the truth is, yes, that this greed is on a higher, more solidified - and more passive and effective manner - with females. There is no compromise with women when it comes to certain areas of men's rights violations/female prvilages. Their logic is that "we just need it and that's it - screw the Constitution or ethics". That is why there is almost absolutely zero opposition to no-fault divorce (i.e. systematic wealth transfer) and draconian arrest-without-warrent domestic violence law among ordinary women.

There is what I call the Woman's Constant among women, which is a consistent preference for females over males, which thus allows them to gain a position of preference in society.

If you ask me, there's human greed and self-interest, and then there's female greed and self-interest. The latter is much more severe, condesescending and supremacist, and is if you ask me an inalienable element of female nature.

The problem is that the absolute majority of men are as blind as you are and don't see the real situation. In your spare time you may think about the following: had it not been for male feminists, what would have stopped men from taking baseball bats and beating out all the feminist crap out of the feminists' heads?

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

There does seem to be an imbalance when it comes to self-interest. However, this has mainly to do with the lack of a sense of justice that I mentioned.
As Warren Farrell says, "successful men freed women but forgot to free themselves". If men freed women, then certainly this is at least partly due to some sense these men have, of what is right. On the other hand, if the situation had been reversed, I'm not sure women would have "freed" men.

A fourth principle I forgot to mention in my comment below, that applies to women, is what Sartre called "acting in bad faith" (he applied this to women). Women act in bad faith, for example, when they attempt to engage in self-deception, or in some forms of their deception of the male (such as their love partner). (I will never understand how Sartre and the feminist de Beauvoir got along..they were essentially polar opposites in their opinions of the sexes. Perhaps there is really some truth to the idea that opposites attract.)
-ax

Remember when scientists were searching for a "gay gene" for lack of a better term? Guess what, they didn't find one. They still have not scientifically proven that homosexuals are born gay.

Does this mean something is wrong with homosexuals? I don't know. They seem ok to me. To tell the truth: I don't really even care. I'm not concerned with whether they were gay at birth or not; they are gay now. What I DO care about is when someone states something that they "believe" and claim it is backed up by scientific facts. When it isn't.

These two came in promoting this asexuality crap as if someone asked them about it. When evidence was shown that their "facts" were really hypothetical beliefs--which at the time are being refuted by many members of the scientific community--they held, suddenly they got stupid. By the way, that site they keep promoting is overrun with man-hating feminist espousing male hatred. Its mostly feminist women with an axe to grind. To have not interest in sex, they sure seem to be holding a grudge against those who engage in sexual activities with men. Just like the lesbian feminists. I read a few threads and they do indeed drone on endlessly about how good feminism is while despising "the patriarchy" and the so-called "power that sex gives MEN." It's a FEMspot. Steer clear and take what these two say with caution they are here because this is a WELL KNOWN MRA site and they have an agenda.

I saw a few posts that pointed out the negative nature of their forums. Surprised? It only makes sense that they will keep trying to sneak in and run the MRA sites into the ground. Matt needs to cut these two off right now.

The FEM brigade doesn't change they just alter they way they attack but they usually have the same goals:

1. Excuses for women

2. Attempts at separating heterosexual couples by claiming women don't really want men. They always fail though. They first tried this by using lesbianism now it is this. They always use separatism. Always. Whether it is separating gays from straight or whatever. It's the old divide and conquer.

3. Taking hypothetical information--or blatant lies--and claiming it is true. Until someone with a brain comes along and debunks it.

4. Commissioning junk science "studies" to support their agenda.

There are more I just don't feel like typing them out.

In all reality I have seen nothing but aversion towards men's rights and heterosexual relationships from the new asexuality get along gang here. They seem more interested in promoting an agenda than talking about the ACTUAL topic. That nbc chic always has an excuse for women.

I actually had to restrain myself from cracking their flawed logic in two because I debate online regularly and can sense a pro-feminist idiot's, separatist, rantings.

I'll ease out of this thread now. Men's Rights Network excellent posts by the way.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

Did I read that right?
Male feminists stopped men from physically beating sense into women?!

...she's always saying something completely stupid and off-base.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

Not into women. Into feminists.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

LOL. Relax, dude. You don't know what you are talking about. Asexuality is not for you. Therefore simply forget it.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

"What I DO care about is when someone states something that they "believe" and claim it is backed up by scientific facts. When it isn't."

I agree with you 100% there.
I also know that Female MRA was the one that brought up the legitimacy of asexuality. Just pointing out that the thread was getting lost on a relatively irrelevant issue...

Good points made, though MR Reality.

I'm just saying if someone decides not to have sex, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. There could be all kinds of reasons why a specific person might not want to sleep with anyone, like if they have herpes or have an injury; or a psychological problem, even if it is not an illness or a "perversion". Besides some people have lower sex drive than others, say due to low testosterone level.

Did someone see a site negative to men, that is favoring asexuality based on that? Somehow the discussion is getting confusing.
-ax

I hope you are not advocating the raising of children without fathers. There is undeniable, overwhelming evidence, that not having a father is the single biggest predictor of teen pregnancy, delinquency and crime, drug addiction, and all manner of personal and social ills. To say that one woman, or even two, can raise a child as effectively as man and wife, is a joke..and a very dangerous one. In fact there is even evidence, that the father alone is more effective than the mother alone. After all, fathers are less like to hit their children than mothers.

Of course if you bring up specific couples, there will be exceptions. But what I'm saying is true in general.
-ax

You confuse two things: impotence (or frigidity) and asexuality. If someone, as you say, has a low level of testosterone, in this case one rather must speak about impotence. The very sense of asexuality is when a person has a normal or even high sexual drive, and sublimates (converts) it into higher levels of activity as compared to sex.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

...why they are REALLY here. Busted.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

...artificial reproduction as opposed to actual men and women creating a child. Notice how she claims the so-called "asexuality" and "artificial reproduction" is the way of the future? According to whom? Those who support such beliefs and means? Indirectly insinuating that Men and women creating babies the natural way will be obsolete. At least that is what the rabid feminists are looking for and believe. There is the ever-present notion of wishing for separatism between the sexes as always in this new bunch and their beliefs. The feminists never cease to jump on any means of taking a biological father out of the picture.

The asexuality thing is simply another attempt since using homosexuals(which is shameful to do) is starting to fail. People are catching on to their game.

Go to the site and do a search on feminism--or just randomly read a few threads that deal with gender--you'll see threads bashing men to no end. This asexuality hypothesis is being USED to further misandry--by the feminists--just like they used lesbians to claim they did not need or want men.

You had better believe the misandrists and their cronies watch this site with a hawkeye. Any hypothetical finding or outrageous female-centered belief attacking heterosexual men--or everyday couples--will be exploited beyond belief to further their agenda.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

Ideological feminists strive for a utopia in which men are of little or no consequence. Even just one year ago, I would have found that idea ridiculous..but then I read the book "Legalizing Misandry" (written by two Ph.D.'s, one male and the other female) and
wised up.

I'm not sure it is correct to say that feminists "use" gays. As far as lesbians, many of the very radical feminists _are_ lesbians. Feminists do use gay males when it suits their needs, in the sense that they can isolate the white heterosexual male as a target for hate. In fact currently, heterosexual white males are the _only_ allowable target group for hate. Usually most people don't even recognize attacks on that class as hate. In all other cases they do, for example hate directed at blacks or women, or gays. Note that by hate, I do not mean hatred of individuals; instead I mean a more genaral form, as directed by one or more classes toward another.

For the ideological feminists, it is truly "us" versus "them". Men are the oppressors, women the oppressed. These nuts have hoodwinked us over the last three decades, into creating a _general_ atmosphere of women vs. men. The two sexes have never been further apart than at present. The outlook for the future is not good.

These same feminists have had much success creating and having passed, hate legislation and various laws which discriminate against men, such as affirmative action for women only. They have achieved this without much notice by the public or even elected officials, by going mainly through back (beaurocratic) channels rather than the usual means (formally proposing legislation, etc).

The courts are as bad as any other entity. There is even as "Association of Women Judges", that can't spell anything but trouble for men and society in general. Imagine if there were an "Association of Men Judges"..people would be up in arms.

Women are the only "oppressed" class that control the majority of the spending power in the U.S. They complain of a (non-existent) wage gap, but in fact wealth has more to do with spending power than how much one earns. Women are the only "oppressed" class that outlive their counterparts by an average of seven years; this fact due mainly to the hard work and dedication of male professionals in the scientific and medical fields. Women are the only "oppressed" class that has more life options than the "oppressors". As Farrell points out, women have three life options: Work full time, stay at home full time, or some combination of the two. Men's options are" work full time, work full time, or work full time.

As long as people remain uninformed, feminists will continue to be able to milk the notion of the "oppressed" status of women.
-ax

It should be obvious that various female hate groups and their minions, keep an eagle eye on sites such as this, one reason being to scour the posts for anything looking like anti-woman bias, so that they may then quote the comments out of context, and thus are able to say, "look at what these men's sites are proposing..it is terrible!!"

Here's an example: in my "listing" below of three things that I have observed about women, in regards to their psyches, here is how a feminist might "quote" number item three:

"..penis envy as a child, which becomes converted to hatred of men as the woman matures..this can result in anything from mental illness to radical feminism."

The feminit knows that the idea of penis envy has long been rejected by "professional" psychologists and society in general, so is thus able to say, "hey look, this guy not only still believes in the idea of penis envy, but he believes that it is harbored in particular by feminists".

Actually the above is not a perfect example of taking someone out of context, since a feminist "quoting" me in this manner would not convey a totally wrong idea of my opinions..and yes, YOU may quote me on that, radfem extraordinaire (you know who you are, scumbag! Go get some integrity!).

-ax

"It should be obvious that various female hate groups and their minions, keep an eagle eye on sites such as this, one reason being to scour the posts for anything looking like anti-woman bias, so that they may then quote the comments out of context, and thus are able to say, "look at what these men's sites are proposing..it is terrible!!"

I do not care that women may be visiting this site and using it for quotes. What I am saying is true and needs to be said. I am not proposing anything terrible - I am simply desribing female nature, the female psyche and the atrocious record females have regarding men's rights when they are put in positions of power.

For far too long men have shut up and put up and retained any criticism of women - to their detriment. Women will continue to abuse men in the media and the Courts with or without an excuse.

I do not advise any man to self-censor his own legitimate, observable concerns because they are worried what women might "think". I assure you, women's minds are made up anyway.

Mr Reality,

The mainstream recognition of asexuality is a relatively new and emerging development. Scientists have barely begun to pay attention to it, and besides that, science as a means to "legitimize" human sexuality of any kind is, to me, highly questionable. The scientific community can do as they please, of course, but human sexuality is a personal and acutely individual thing. The fact that you seem to believe that an individual's sexual nature is illegitimate because "scientists" haven't officially written their approval somewhere is irksome. The asexual community, however small, is certainly real and its members know their own orientation better than any random scientist ever could.

As for the supposed misandry you claim to have found on the forums there, I can only say that in all my time spent there, I have hardly come across male-bashing. Of course, I don't participate in absolutely ever discussion there, and since there is always bound to be a misandrist present amongst a group of women (although make no mistake, there are male asexuals), I suppose that somewhere amidst all the threads, male-bashing can be found. I want to strongly affirm that I in no way condone or participate in misandric talk or activity. Honestly, though, how many discussions did you peruse? I hardly think that you sifted through enough of the boards to justify your reckless implication that asexuals are somehow misandric in general.

As for the sexual disorder you brought up, that has been widely acknowledged within the asexual community and taken into account, and no member disputes the fact that there are people in the world who have that particular disorder. However, asexuals obviously do not feel that their orientation is in any way connected to a disorder, if for the simple fact that "disorder" implies a problem, an obstacle to leading a comfortable life. Someone with a disorder will generally want to seek out help to correct said disorder. This is not the case with asexuals; for the most part, asexuals are perfectly comfortable with asexuality itself and only uncomfortable because of certain sexuals such as yourself who act dismissively or hostilely toward the orientation. An asexual has no interest in "fixing" themselves; a person with a sexual disorder, I imagine, would want a solution.

In my original comment, I simply wanted to point out to you the existence of asexuality because it is, indeed, something to be taken into account when speaking of human sexuality. If you are uncomfortable with the concept for whatever reason or if you disagree with that lifestyle, etc., you're entitled to that sentiment -- but there's no need to ridicule, insult, and dismiss other people.

I'm sorry, everyone, to have perpetuated the off-topic direction of this thread, but I really needed to address Mr Reality's comments.