We spend a lot of time on this part of the internet hating on abrasive feminists. I’m not saying that the likes of Lindy West and Jessica Valenti haven’t earned our general ill-will, but I’ve begun to think that they really are not the worst of the enemies men face in this society today. The most militant opponent of the red-pill man is, in fact, the mangina.
I’m not the first to say that, nor am I about to be the first to discuss the particular mangina on whose words this post will focus. He’s been talked about in the manosphere before, and for good reason. The man I speak of is none other than Hugo Schwyzer:
Schwyzer has already gone on record endorsing cuckolding and other ridiculous notions, so I’ve truly come to expect madness from him. What came about this week, however, surprised even me.
Today, gentlemen, Hugo Schwyzer would like you to consider taking it up the rear for gender equality:
Want to make straight men better in bed — and better feminist allies? The path may be simple: fuck them up the ass. According to one brand new book, the path to making men more compassionate, appreciative and playful may be straight through their butts.
In The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure: Erotic Exploration for Men and Their Partners, Charlie Glickman and Aislinn Emirzian make the case that straight “men who get into anal penetration are among the most secure in their masculinity: because they’ve examined themselves, faced their fears.”
No, he’s not done yet:
In a deeply misogynistic culture, there are few greater fears with which men are raised than the fear of being labeled as someone who acts like a woman, allowing himself to be penetrated…In his Myth of the Modern Homosexual, historian and cultural theorist Rictor Norton explains that the term “asshole” developed as a homophobic (and thus woman-hating) slur…
…Glickman and Emirzian acknowledge that this myth is persistent: “The idea that penetration is an act of dominance is almost certainly tied in to sexism and the notion that the woman’s role is inferior. Plenty of men have absorbed these ideas at a subconscious level. Even if a man doesn’t think it is an act of dominance when he penetrates his (male or female) partner, he may still hesitate to switch roles because he is afraid that it will mean losing his masculinity if he takes a turn catching instead of pitching.”
At this point you may be struggling to continue absorbing this insanity, but let’s finish this off:
The payoff for clearing those hurdles, Glickman says, is nothing less than the radical transformation of heterosexual sex. In 2011, Glickman wrote a column entitled “How Pegging Can Save the World,” arguing that no other erotic experience a man can undergo can create greater empathy with women than being penetrated by his partner…the sooner men get over their anxiety and guilt, the more fun they and their partners will have. And maybe, just maybe, we can peg our way right out of sexism itself.
Alright, we’ve made it.
Contained within this absurd narrative is a clear insight into what could be considered a larger agenda of emasculation, and that agenda involves what I like to call straight shaming. Consider the following implications of this piece.
It is not enough now to merely be a heterosexual and tolerate those who have different orientations. Now, to truly combat misogyny in the eyes of folks like Schwyzer, one must be fully open to participating in homosexual acts.
If you are a heterosexual male uncomfortable with the idea of partaking in a homosexual act, you are…
a) promoting the perpetuation of a misogynistic culture
b) showing that you’re not comfortable in your own sexuality
c) promoting homophobia (which is now, apparently, also analogous to woman-hate)
Going by this logic, any male who is not open to participating in a homosexual act is now presumed to be insecure and, therefore, deemed secretly gay or bi.
Males who are open to those acts are deemed tolerant and worthy combatants against sexism and misogyny. Their open performance of these acts also essentially renders them gay or bi, just like their less “open” peers.
Meanwhile, the actual homosexuals (gay and bi men) are still as they always were.
Where does this logic leave us, then?
EVERY MAN IS GAY OR BI.
The goal is not just to promote the tolerance of homosexuality, but to promote the dominance of homosexuality. That is, to make homosexuality and openness to engaging in it the only acceptable way forward for any given man.
It is imperative that any heterosexual male concerned with self-improvement be aware of this phenomenon. There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality—I don’t believe it is a choice and I think we should recognize the right of those who are so inclined to live as they will.
That being said, there is also nothing wrong with being an unabashedly heterosexual male. You can rest assured that given the choice between that model of masculinity and the emasculated variant advocated here by Schwyzer, women will largely spring for the former, claims of their “anti-sexism” and opposition to “gender stereotypes” be damned.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at our media. Do the ideal examples of masculinity in the media that women above the age of consent spend enormous amounts of time fantasizing about and swooning over resemble effete men with a penchant for getting it up the butt?
Or do they look like these guys?
The answer should make things very clear.
Women do desire actual men, and no male should apologize for satisfying that demand.
Read Next: The Physical Decline of Modern Man
You think a bunch of homos talking in the media will actually convince hetros to turn homo? Nah. Nope. Not going to happen. Ever. Except… if a hetro decides to take this man’s advice and take it up the butt, he was never truly hetro in the first place (media term: “Bi-curious”). But either way, who honestly cares? If 90% of guys decide to become gay, that won’t be a disservice to me; at all. Same with 90% of guys getting fat, or bald, or etc… All good for me.
Go back in history twenty years at a time and you’ll always find a conservative movement that feels exactly as you do about whatever “radical” ideas the left is talking about at any given time.
instance, briefly; come, instance
Considering that most gay men are ultra-promiscuous with a propensity towards pedo behavior, this wouldn’t be good for anyone. Won’t somebody please think of the children?
Srsly?
Well, I would like to submit a reframe on this:
I consider the act of a dick entering a woman’s vagina to be symbolic of her completely swallowing up his manhood, he is no longer seen by anyone else, suffocating him from every direction, and being the sole recipient of what he ‘produces’, so to speak.
Therefore, all sexual penetration is matriarchal. It represents the complete ownership of the male.
Keep your Kegels off my freedom!
May I get some histrionic shrieks of agreement from the guys, please?
Wow… this is remarkably original and I have never heard it stated as such. It doesn’t matter if you’re serious or not… it makes a great way to counter troll feminists for their “penis oppression symbolism” analogies.
I’m going to use this…
You cant use it because its too logical.
This was the Greek view of sex. Penetration was manly, being penetrated was feminine. Not sure how I feel about the implication that banging dudes in the ass is totally cool but there you go.
LOL!
You know what would be funny, if 90% of males become homosexual, then all the females would be so pissed of at the lack of straight males because they only had 10% of the population to choose from. Then women might actually become more feminine. and normal.
Well Michael…it’s likely that it’s only 10% of the world’s males who are pounding the poonani-pavement of 90% of the women in the world anyway. I don’t know if it’s helping with their femininity or not.
Nope, we already have proof — if the percentage of straight men in a given location drops dramatically, the women will still fixate on the most alpha and fight / Manjaw over those alphas. Instead of becoming more feminine, they will become nearly masculine in their territorial aggression:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/is-college-a-poon-nirvana/
I hope every man in the world except me does become gay. That would be awesome.
“Stand in line, ladies. I can only handle three at a time.”
And think of all the bistros and gentrification we’d see. The whole world would be like MidTown Atlanta.
A whole world I’d never see again
Consider Morrissey, who recently said that if there were more gay men, there would be less wars, and that armies and nuclear weapons are essentially heterossexual practices… I’m glad I live in our times, because in the future being a straight man will be considered against the law.
I’d hardly consider Morrissey a serious voice of masculine reason.
I was thinking the same thing. In many social circles it’s very ‘cool’ to be gay by straight folks. Whereas if the same man was straight the chicks in the same social circle would consider him the typical run of the mill asshole. Come to think of it I seem to recall once reading where some straight guys go to places and bars and tell chicks they are gay, only to find the women wanting to try to make them try heterosexual sex. The social dating scene is the USA is a fucking circus these days.
I guess Morrissey must not be too familiar with the history of Ancient Greece or Rome.
…or modern Pashtun culture (same as the ancient one except with guns) for that .
And then the women would complain along with the fact there are no more good men that there are no more straight men.
Excellent article. I have nothing against homosexuals on a personal level, but the vigor and enthusiasm with which the Left embraces the gay activist movement makes me wary of it and keeps me on the lookout for trends like this.
Nice article, but I must say I fully support the idea of male feminists getting fucked in the ass.
Hugo is the Uncle Tom of the feminist movement.
more like uncle bottom
“Where are all the good men?”
Getting fucked in the ass, like you encouraged them to.
“Where are all the good men?”
Failing shit tests LOL
Literally LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLZZZZ
Notice how dancing in clubs shifted from face to face, which it was back in the day, to guys grinding their asses on chicks. All the girl needs to do is slap on a strap on and he’s right there with Hugo.
Pretty soon their gonna decide it’s a “choice” after all. And there’s only ever one right choice with these people.
Schwyzer’s insistence that other men should engage in behavior they have no interest in shows he is the one who is insecure.
The thing that irritates me about the GrandMangina’s drivel is that it’s a blatant ploy to attempt to get gay men and straight men hating each other . . . when we should both be hating Hugo for what he’s doing to the name of masculinity.
It doesn’t matter if you like your prostate tickled, or by what or whom. That’s like saying “all lesbians would convert back to dick if they just slept with a REAL man”, and it’s patently misandrous and grossly false. What matters is that whatever your masculine sexuality is, you embrace it and practice it, even if it means taking it up the butt.
Or staring at really big boobs.
Or watching porn in your spare time.
Or learning Game in an effort to improve your count.
Or only approaching chicks wearing skirts.
Or summarily snubbing every feminist who expresses an interest in you.
Feminism has attempted to use male sexuality — both gay and straight — as a crowbar to keep men in general from uniting under our common issues and interests. Gay men enjoy the same visitation, custody, and alimony issues that straight men do. Gay men register for selective service, just like straight men. Gay men have to put up with rooms full of catty beyatches talking about their exciting lunch plans and asking their opinions about all sorts of inane shit when they’d just rather be surfing the web for gay porn. When it comes down to it, all men — gay and straight — would rather watch people have sex than listen to yet another discussion on the advantages of lap band surgery.
Hugo makes the mistake of thinking that homosexuality is still a big enough issue to make us all run from the room, sphincters clinched. But this is the 21st century. We sell a lot of butt plugs and anal vibes to straight men over in the pornworld. Even conservative straight men. Having your prostate gland stimulated does not release a stream of liberal and progressive hormones into your system, sorry. it doesn’t even make you sympathize with women (although if you feel you must . . . ). It just gets you off.
Now, having your wife strap on a dildo and sexually dominate you might terrorize you into being more “sympathetic”, which seems the direction in which Hugo wants you to go . . . but just because one of our sex organs is up our butt doesn’t mean that its stimulation will make us more feminine.
Hell, the most masculine dude I know loves it up the butt. And no, he’s not particularly sympathetic to women.
Troll troll troll troll
guess again. do some reading
Wow, did that take you a long time to type? You put a lot of thought into it.
Nope. Not buying that sht. GTFO your kind isn’t welcome here. You’re just trying to use subversion tactics to turn this site into a faggot-accepting crowd. Not going to work on normal human beings.
Or conversely I’m trying to convince all men that we have common issues and interests beyond our sexuality, and we shouldn’t allow some ideological quibbling to divide us in those.
But . . . I’ll let you make up your own mind. Take your time. Let me know if I can help with the big words.
My grand dad taught me a lesson once that I’ll never forget; “Never trust a man who looks like he has never been punched, because blows to the face and the chest teaches you how to think before you open your big, dumb mouth.”
Your grandpa is fuckin’right
That’s like saying Draco Malfoy from Harry Potter is worthy of honor and trust because he once got punched in the face by for mouthing off to Hermoine. An experience which taught him NOTHING morally significant, btw.
Because he was punched by a woman, thus negating the entire point.
Harry Potter was written by a woman nuff said
Men out there, flag this blog because it is going to become visionary in the near future. “Pegging” is going to become the new “I’ll do you if you do me” which oral sex used to be. I have heard some anecdotal evidence of this already from friends. The story was always the same. They found some hipster chick at the bar, gamed them, went to the woman’s place, and before she would allow vaginal penetration she would want to penetrate the man’s anus with a dildo or another object. Before reading this blog I had always dismissed it as some crazy chick phenomenon. But, if it has hit the fringe media it is going to head mainstream quickly. Soon it will bleed into your standard feminist dogma and will be adopted by all of its foot soldiers. Women will start beleving en masse that they need this type of “buy in” from a man before engaging in normal, heterosexual relations with him.
The agressive promotion of the homosexual agenda is all about the end game – CONTROL. Effeminiate men do not question authority just as women are less inclined to question shows of authority. Also, women are the herd gender whereas men, masculine men, are the individuals. Want women to do something en masse? Tinker with some facets of popular culture and get the right Alpha women to start a trend and poof you have women wearing and consuming the newest latest fashion. It does not work that way with men, but the power hungry elite sure would like to have it that way.
Every time you see something pop up like this always view it through the lens of the elite or the government wanting to gain more control over you. Do it every time.
Why do they want your guns? Control.
Why do they want to run the health care system? Control.
Why do they want men to act like women? Control.
Why do they want drones in the sky? Control.
Why do they want you to not be able to speak your mind? Control.
Why do they want you to only be able to go to public school? Control.
Why do they want to keep fighting a failed war on drugs? Control.
It is about control each and every time. No true power broker actually believes in equality, helping the needy, reducing violence, or any of that crap. They only believe in control or independence. That is it. The war is between those who wish to control or be controlled against those who wish to be independent and not controlled.
Thread winner
QUOTE MAD MAX: “They found some hipster chick at the bar, gamed them, went to the woman’s place, and before she would allow vaginal penetration she would want to penetrate the man’s anus with a dildo or another object. Before reading this blog I had always dismissed it as some crazy chick phenomenon. But, if it has hit the fringe media it is going to head mainstream quickly. Soon it will bleed into your standard feminist dogma and will be adopted by all of its foot soldiers. Women will start beleving en masse that they need this type of “buy in” from a man before engaging in normal, heterosexual relations with him.”
Amen.
I have also never seen a more fagged-out generation of men like today’s hipsters. Think of the band Foster The People.
“I have also never seen a more fagged-out generation of men like today’s hipsters. Think of the band Foster The People”
It looks like that’s the preferred form of peacocking among that crowd. The scary part is that their parents are rich and connected as fuck and indulge their every whim.
Man, hipsters take the cake. And it’s not homophobic if you get a girl home and she wants to put it in your ass and you belt her across the room.
Who said you can’t find wisdom in the comment section of a blog. Some mod should flag this for the top.
Why is it that every crazy male feminist I see turns out to be a white guy?
There’s an even broader issue at work here too. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Maybe a man likes it up the ass, maybe he doesn’t. But either way, it’s just going to be how he feels about a particular sensation. A guy may love getting pegged by his wife, but it isn’t likely to make him more emotionally deep and in tune with feminine agendas.
Maybe a woman likes wearing a strap-on. Does that mean she’s suddenly more likely to empathize with being a man? No. Because this is stuff people do in bed, for fun, to get off. Why must every god damn sex act be somehow symbolically tied to some great deeper social, political, or emotional meaning? We all do stuff in bed that gets us off. Maybe it means something, maybe it’s an insight into someone’s psychology. Or maybe it’s just fun. And either way, what’s true for how and why one person might like something doesn’t mean those psychological reasons are true for anyone else.
Mark Twain said it best: Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be
prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished;
persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
Sometimes, a sex act just comes down to a matter of liking something, or not. Period. End of story. Full stop.
Troll, troll and ignorant troll.
Yeah, because it’s really trolling to say that what gets you off doesn’t have to be a sociopolitical act filled with deep symbolism.
(First off – Didn’t you read the site rules before posting? Your kind isn’t welcome here.)
Or, maybe it is. Maybe normal humans don’t want to be forced and shamed into a sexually deviant behaviour just to be accepted by some self-hating POS. To argue that the spread of radical lgbt propaganda has nothing to do with the increase of said behaviour is asinine to say the least.
Gays and lesbians aren’t stable people, as statistics prove (domestic violence, risk behaviour, crimes, all types of abuse including sexual and physical, STDs, etc.) Face it. It’s not normal behaviour to shove something up the anus – in fact it’s proven to cause colon cancer. Nature, religion and science all agree that homosexuality is perverse, wrong and unnatural.
What kind if fucked up person are you to accept specific sexual practices be talked about and promoted for political awareness and suggestion? This kind of article existing should be enough to baffle you. Next on dog whisperer they will encourage having penetrated by your pet dog to create a closer bond. Does that sound right to you homeboy?
I guess you make that argument for pedophiles and those who enjoy bestiality? That many in the “pride parades” exhibit naked, obscene sex acts in front of children and the general public – and that the lgbt movement was started by a pedophile (John Money) – should worry normal people.
People need to rise up against this forced-in-our-faces sexual deviancy as happened in EE some months ago, and then Mark Twain’s quote will apply regarding pro-lbtg femicunts and manginas.
People are getting fed-up and are starting to take action.
The problem is this being endorsed and becoming the norm. Women gobble this kind of shit up and live by it. I’ve seen how past manginas changed this world they must be stopped at the source
So can I still get the ol’ Shanghai pinky finger massage when she’s going down on me without becoming a feminist?
haha feminists have such a pathological hatred of masculinity, it makes perfect sense they’d demand men get rammed up the ass before they can be “good allies”. It’s just an indication of how castrated are male feminists that this can be said out loud.
Also, these loons have a massive obsession with rape, and when you think about it that’s all this boils down to, trying to force men to assume the position of a violated man. It’s just further proof that feminism is a particularly unfortunate mental disorder.
So men are better than women at feminism. Anybody even surprised by this?
Manginas are a waste of sperm
‘ There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality…’
Yes, there is. If you honestly believe this, you have already sold out your man card.
Whether I were an atheist or a Christian, I would still think it’s deeply unhealthy. That’s pretty manifest, and I don’t need the Bible to tell me it. The rise in homosexuality is rooted in the belief that men and women are basically the same with only physiological differences, that is to say, that men and women do not need each other.
Amen! They shouldn’t have let that crap get posted – it violates the site rules and I lose a bit of respect for ROK when they don’t follow by their own rules/standards. I could never bring myself to respect someone who expressed approval of homosexuality ever again, no matter who it was. They’ve stripped themselves of human decency and respect for morality and biology, if they approve that then what won’t they approve of?
People wouldn’t exist without heterosexuality. Meanwhile, colon cancer is a consequence that many sexual deviants risk when they practice such a disgusting act (not to mention, high STD risk, unstable “relationships”, high domestic violence rates, and unhealthy/dangerous lifestyle in general).
It’s really guys like this one Schwyzer who really turned me against the pro-gay movement. 15 years ago, one was a liberal to think that gays should be left alone and not treated like shit. Now to hold view is to be a homophobe, because one must accept gay marriage, go to drag shows and even get a mushroom tip in the ass to prove one is not an oppressive homophobic pig.
When you consider the efforts underway to stigmatize heterosexual males (98-99% of the male population), one wonders how bad homophobia really is. Homophobia might be cruel to 1% of the population, but it at least holds back a twisted worldview that makes being a heterosexual male a crime, thus making life significantly worse for 99% of the population. If you sympathize with Occupy’s logic (99% > 1%), then what does this say about the efforts to actively promote homosexuality and to shame men who find homosexuality to be disgusting?
Granted, I don’t care about gays. Their lifestyle is of no importance to me, even though I find it disgusting and want nothing to do with it. I’ve had gay roommates and have let them be. It’s the mindset promoted by Schwyzer that I find repellent, and if I had to choose between homophobia or getting fucked in the ass, I would choose homophobia any day of the week.
I don’t know about putting Chris Brown. I mean the guy wears skinny jeans, ok?
Aside from beating down overrated Rihana, I don’t see nothing else alpha about this dude.
I mean he wears skinny jeans. TIGHT skinny jeans.
Also he’s known to throw girly tantrums. Enough said.
All you need to know about a fraud and hypocrite named Hugo Scwyzer:
http://www.xojane.com/issues/hugo-schwyzer-controversy
“But part of it is really just me being ignorant, full stop. Thus, I decided to do some reading about Hugo Schwyzer, about his troubling history as an addict and about why so many people would rather he simply vanish from feminist spaces entirely, if not from the face of the Earth.” … “[An] attempted murder-suicide that took place in 1998, while Schwyzer was under the influence of drugs.”
Do read the whole .xojane blog post.
Or this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2011/12/people-can-be-so-ineffable/
“Schwyzer claims to be a “male feminist” and to have focused his life on feminism out of remorse and to make amends for his past grotesque history of woman-hating and violence, including both having sex with his female students and attempting to murder his ex-girlfriend. This opportunistic motherfucker is full of shitte.”
People for whom the free market and society in general doesn’t work are always trying to change the system to benefit themselves. Manginas have little to no shot at Brazilian super models (Mick Jagger and the Pats’ Tom Brady) thus social re-engineering is paramount to achieve what they want.
Well done to Athlone McGinnis for explaining part of this on-going process.
It would seem all of these characters are members of a particularly troublesome tribe.
The internet publishing world is getting very complicated. The
largest majority of what exists in the internet does so because of
advertising. And it is becoming the tail that is wagging the dog.
Content now is advertising or exists only at the behest of advertising.
On
one side you have publishers of content and on the other you have
advertisers working at the behest of commercial entities, clients. In
the Mad Men era, the creatives that produced the ads were the force as
the ads were placed into mass media. The reception by people and
persuasive content accomplished the goal of the ad were due to the work
of the creatives.
Today, it is the foot soldiers of that
industry, those that actually get the ad in front of the eyes where it
will have the most effect that controls the efficiency of the ads. In
the initial days of internet advertising, until 2009, they used the
print and television model of wholesale blocks to various publishers on
the basis of what the typical person that might read the webpage was
like.
But with the advent of multiprocessing, commodization of
servers, and algorithms to control complex statistical computation, the
emergence of a technology called “Real Time Bidding” has now turned the
tables in favor of advertising. A concept called the Demand Side
Platform now keeps huge amounts of data about users internet activity
and uses the data in something called a Naive Bayesian Classifier to
classify users into one of hundreds of predictable groups all containing
hundreds of variables.
At the moment the page will be
dynamically realized and presented to a user, this classification data
is used in an auction on the Demand Side Platform and the worth of this
set of eyes, this viewer that will now see the page, is then
electronically bid on by advertisers. So by placing the ad in front of
eyes that might achieve the goal of the ad, then efficiency of the ad
is raised.
The publisher, however, fears a loss of revenue, as
potentially the “viewers” of his publication might be bid downward by
the mechanism. Under the block strategy he had a predictable revenue,
and he could adjust his viewership by adjusting the content offered.
But given how the advertisers view the effectiveness of Real Time
Bidding, it will only increase. Not only because it works but it also
imports automation to a function that had required sales teams before.
Now,
the publishers fight back. And the way they fight back is with
writers like Hugo Smegma. Hugo deliberately creates outrage, and is
quite successful at it. Article after article, indicts men, shame men,
vilify men, to the delight of female readers, and pisses the fuck out
of men. One term I have found to describe this style of writing is
“Link Bait”. So blogs like this one, ROK, rail over Hugo’s articles and
post the link to the original.
Then a huge and diverse number of
internet users come flooding into the orginal post and it whomps that
Demand Side Platform with user categories far far more diverse than the
normal readership of the page and potentially massively drives up the
revenue.
Hugo works for publishers because the misandry inherent
in society allows any publisher to bash the shit out of men and say “We
don’t censor women’s issues”.
Hugo Smegma is a genius at
continuously finding ways to up the ante, going from Men Are Weak to
now, this sheer genius of Outrage, that Men Should Get Fucked in the
Ass. I can’t wait to see where he goes next. And we all react. He is
the tail the wagging the dog and he is laughing all the way to the bank.
He is probably literally being alpha by being beta and the fame and
cash he makes has him sitting in hot tubs with a harem, joking with his
bitches about “how we freaked the fuck out over getting fucked in the
ass’. And all his bitches giggle and say “Hugo you’re so smart at how
you make those stupid men jump your rope”.
The issue of men and
the Manosphere is that we are utter children in sophistication compared
to where the women are at not only using this advertising strategy for
ideological gain and profit, but actually being complicit partners in
it. They create content at the behest of advertisers, attend meetings,
and are part of the strategy. Nobody typically in the manosphere works
in this industry. And almost none of us understand it. And I am sure
of this comment is Greek to most of you.
We have nothing like
this. Our writers are earnest writers that often are not monetized.
The most provocative writer we have is Roissy and he doesn’t even have
ads. The only blog we have that is even close to Jezebel is Return of
Kings and Jezebel is years ahead in sophistication in the reality of
internet, culture, and the mechanics of the advertising system.
We better wake the fuck up and learn how this game is being played and start bringing guns to gunfights.
This is the reason I try my damndest to never link to anything I firmly disagree with unless I absolutely have to.
These shock writers get off on pissing people off because they know it generates traffic.
I am glad that feminists made this move. Now every man would start to understand how absurdly dumb these women are. Even women who like masculine men will now start to shy away from the mainstream feminism. I encourage the professional mangina who wrote this article to keep writing and informing everyone about the absurdity of the feminist movement. Soon everyone will realize that the only two reasons feminists want to continue are:
1. They are not smart enough to add value to our society aka get a meaningful job or start a new business. Hence, they need feminism to put food on the table.
2. They hate men with all their heart. Its not about “empowering” women. That has already been done.
Guys in college don’t give a shit about doing gay stuff as long as their is at least one girl around. Dudes love mmf threesomes. It’s a bonding experience for them to relate on a primal level with their fellow man by high fiving one another and clasping hands while being balls deep in one girl.
Anybody else remember when Eric northman had the sex wit de gay vampire? Twas awesome eh? *high five*
Two words. Justin Bieber! 😛
QUOTE: ” the sooner men get over their anxiety and guilt, the more fun they and their partners will have. And maybe, just maybe, we can peg our way right out of”
What that means is that if shit continues to go this way and becomes a norm, then we can expect to see health classes throughout the public schools require young boys to be anally penetrated.
QUOTE ATHLONE: “..going by this logic, any male who is not open to participating in a homosexual act is now presumed to be insecure and, therefore, deemed secretly gay or bi.”
Or worse, if one is not into performing a gay act then he must be the next unabomber or a terrorist therefore he should be locked up in prison. It’s a pre-emptive strike. I could see this happening if things continue down the socialist dictatorship road.
So, not partaking in a gay act makes me gay? Flawless logic.
Right. By that same “logic,” if you refuse to have sex with children, then you are secretly a pedophile.
So there’s two sides to a coin, you toss it, you might get a penis or a vagina. Does it really matter what you get? Am I to believe women have no power at all? It’s not that kind of question at all. It’s a question of MORE POWER. That’s what every organization is about. People get in groups because there’s more strength in numbers. Hypocrites. God damn hypocrites.
We could all fist Hugo to show him how much we care.
Lol. He’s not talking about homosexuality, since he’s talking about a WOMAN penetrating a man. That’s still a heterosexual act.
Anyway, of the guys I supposedly spend enormous amounts of time fantasizing about, the only one I recognized was John Hamm (I think.. the second one). I don’t find him that attractive, nor any of the other guys.
This is just a gay man trying to use feminism to push his agenda, he is definitely not straight nor into women, deep down inside he is a bottom.
This cute lil hippie chick used to come into my bar with her willowy, wimpy boyfriend. One night, hippie chick and me got drunk after hours and I ended up taking her home for some fuckeration. I wasn’t even trying to be all tough-guy, but just my usually ‘grab a girl and do what you want’ self. Afterwards, she was insatiable. Wanted more, wouldn’t let me sleep, woke me up early for two more sessions, etc.
Finally, both exhausted, she explained: Her and her “boy”friend had experimented with her fucking him in the ass with a dildo. He liked it so much that it was basically all they did now. She, as a hippy and “feminist”, felt she couldn’t reject this desire of his, which was so “enlightened.” But she was miserable. A cute, sexual, young girl, dying for a proper rogering… but denied this pleasure because her “man” was a limp poofter.
So I rest my case: HUGO SCHWYZER HATES WOMEN AND WANTS THEM ALL TO BE MISERABLE AND SEXUALLY UNSATISFIED, FOREVER. The end 🙂
Hi, I’ve been into this since I first saw it in porn as a teenager. I’m also into all sorts of other weird BDSM shit. I game girls just like everyone else here, and once I have them hooked, I start intoducing the weird stuff, some of them are really into it, most aren’t. So, I basically have to close ten girls for more than a few bangs in order to find one that actually gets off on the freaky weird shit and isn’t a total headcase, because with a girl ‘doing it cuz you want her to’ and ‘doing it cuz it turns her on’ are two different places.
I am currently in a relationship with traditional gender roles (she cooks, cleans, takes care of me, acts feminine, etc), and yeah, we do all sorts of things that would probably really bother people if they knew. I get off on it, if you don’t, well, whatever, that’s you.
That said, if mainstream girls start using pegging in shit tests, I’m not going to suddenly turn into a pussy, fail shit tests, and go home crying. I’m going to get disgusted with the weird girl who is bringing it up and go hit on someone else.
The jews are always promoting homosexuality ! WHY !
The fact that 50 shades of grey is a WHOPPING best seller among women everywhere, is all every heterosexual man needs to humiliate Hugo Shwyzer. Someone please fuck that fucktard mangina in the @ss. She is begging for it.
It’s simply ASTOUNDING to read this crap from Shwyzer. But where it REALLY gets hilarious is when the pro-gay clan are all running around trying to convince everyone they are “BORN THAT WAY”…… but still manage to refuse to accept that very same reality about STRAIGHT men.
“Yeah. OK. We know. We get it. You were “born that way”. I agree. And so was I.. NOW FUCK OFF and go find some other dude to try and convince — even when nobody can convince you to be straight in a million fucking years”.
That’s the response which needs to be shoved up their asses repeatedly before they get it.
Wasn’t Charlie Hunnam in the original “Queer as Folk”?
Wasn’t Charlie Hunnam in the original “Queer as Folk”?
There is nothing wrong with a guy wanting anal sex or wanting to be penetrated. If he wants to, then that’s his thing. It does not necessarily make him gay or bi. Maybe he only wants a woman to do it to him, and that in itself, is heterosexual sex because it is between a man and a woman. It takes a real man to admit he wants to be penetrated (if he’s into that). In fact, it is actually more painful to have something up your ass than it is for a woman to have it in her vagina.
What the fck is wrong with you? Spoken like a true brain-washed, limp-wristed mangina, complete with anti-straight(aka sane)-male shaming language. GTFO, this site isn’t for faggots.
No, what will happen is manginas will continue to write things like that, and it will only alienate men and women from feminism, thus further weakening the feminist dogma. Most men and woman will never ever desire to peg.
“There’s everything wrong with homosexuality—it is a choice and we should continue to criminalize all sexual deviancy (pedophilia and bestiality included) in order to safe-guard our society and its future – as our ancestors have done (and for good reason – the gay “rights” movement was started by a pedophile –John Money).”
FIFY.
i wish i had a penny for each hysterical nonsense in this article. and I’ll let you know pegging is about to become the next big thing, allied with gender roles inversion. just lay back and watch 😉
Boom, bye bye…
I agreed with everything except this part: ” There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality—I don’t believe it is a choice and I think we should recognize the right of those who are so inclined to live as they will.”
There is EVERYTHING wrong with homosexuality, and not simply because of religious reasons. To summarize in brevity:
1: it promotes a lifestyle which acts contrary to nature and prevents life from being created
2: It promotes a lifestyle which has been proven to increase disease transmission among the demographic and outside the demographic (through bisexuality)
3: it is a mental disorder that has an increased suceptibility to other disorders like manic depression, and suicide (and not because of a lack of acceptance, since homo friendly countries also bear these issues)
4: it harms the normal psychological gender development of a child that is reared by homosexual pretend parents
5: areas that support homosexuality have a direct and proportional non support of religion, and even antagonism to, especially with Christian religion
6: It is a tool that the communists used to undermine the JudeoChristian foundation of the US, in order to destroy the US
7: According to historian JD Unwin’s research, societies that allowed for homosexuality to promulgate upto and including in marriage, faded to oblivion. The reason was that, once a society became sexually liberalized to the point of legalizing depravity, most in that society became less concerned with altruistic purposes like trade and the arts, and more concerned with fulfilling these depravities, causing a fatal cultural decline.
8: There is no legitimate evidence to prove that homosexuals are “born” that way. Even the APA had to concede there is no definitive evidence to establish that genetic homosexuality is a fact.
I could go on, but i believe i’ve made my point…
You certainly made your point that you’re ignorant.
1. It doesn’t act contrary to nature. Reproduction doesn’t occur. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t occur in nature. Also, being gay doesn’t make you infertile.
2. For this reason, it’s wise to practice safe sex. Some gay people don’t, unfortunately. That’s their fault, and that’s their burden to bear. Knowingly spreading sexually transmitted diseases is a crime anyway
3. No “homo accepting” country will ever completely get rid of homophobia, making your point about lack of acceptance invalid. Your assertion that homosexuality is a mental disorder is not supported by any scientific publication, or reality.
4. No evidence for this claim has been established
5. It’s the religions that insist on being antagonistic to homosexuality, not the other way around.
6. Communists have historically been anti-gay, so your argument doesn’t make sense.
7. Many societies throughout history had faded, regardless of whether or not they accepted homosexuality. You’re assuming correlation equals causation. That’s stupid.
8. Oh, so now you accept the APA when it confirms something you believe? At any rate, whether or not people are born gay is irrelevant to whether or not there’s something wrong with it. Science also indicates that homosexuality is epigenetic.
Ray, you can’t be serious. Reproduction is the ONLY natural means by which a species can pass on its genes to future progency. Even in unorthodox instances where reproduction doesnt take place due to conventional sex (such as ex utero fertilization) it STILL Requires the sperm (male) and egg (female) in order for life to develop. Unless you know of some other means that life occurs naturally (aka without the assistance of science) in regards to homosexuals, i suggest you put aside the bias in favor of some actual facts.
2:”some” is less accurate than MOST. This is why the CDC has taken the initiative to target MSM specifically with programs designed to educate them on the dangers of unsafe sex.
3: homophobia is a buzzword used by homosexual activists using words in order to try criminalize free thought that disagrees with their lifestyle. It’s their equivalent for “racism” but the problem is, homosexuality is not natural/normal, unlike with race. There are many ex homosexuals who prove that the lifestyle is not immutable.
Ok let me call your bluff…show me the proof that states homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena? Since you think it isnt a mental disorder, let’s go tit for tat on that.
4: No evidence…really? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-all-children-raised-by-gay-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i
5: Christianity/Christians aren’t going around trying to force homosexual businesses to cater to their whims, and suing them if they don’t, so your point there is nullified
6: Again, your opinions can easily be refuted through a simple search to the contrary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist
7: There is no assumption. As i said, Unwin’s research proved that there was a correlation with increased sexualization of a society and that society’s ultimate destruction. There were no exceptions. Homosexuality was not solely to blame, but once a society normalized it, it’s obliteration was not far behind. An example of this is Rome.
8: I “accept” the fact that even though they lifted the ban on it through nothing more substantial than alfred kinsey junk science and frank kameny activism, they nonetheless had to reverse course and say there was no definitive evidence that it originates genetically.
“epigenetics” is the new exploratory research trying to do what the debunked “left hand” “twin brothers” studies have been unable to show: that homosexuality does indeed originate naturally…you will excuse me if i don’t start sweating buckets here lol
PS: calling me “ignorant” while systematically providing nothing more substantial than opinion will only succeed in getting you braned a biased ignoramus for your efforts.
1) Your assumption that something can’t occur naturally without the assistance of science assumes science becomes apart from nature. How sad. Also, you didn’t address my point. Read it over again. Do it a couple times if you have to.
2) No, most wouldn’t be accurate since the most liberal estimate is that gays are 20% likely to have HIV. That is, by definition, not “Most”. It also doesn’t take into account the fact that the CDC study is flawed. The CDC study on MSM admits this, it was based on a convenience sample. But sure, lecture me on junk science.
3) Blah blah blah blah “homophobia is a buzzword”. Nope, sorry, it’s a perfectly valid definition for prejudice, fear, dislike, or hatred of gays. And, last time I checked, nobody has been arrested for questioning homosexuality. Your paranoia is unfounded. You also didn’t address my point that you’re never going to get rid of homophobia or anti-gay bigotry. You can’t just claim that homosexuality and depression are linked by assuming correlation = causation.
I’m not sure why you asked me to prove it was a “naturally occuring phenomenon”, as if that would prove it’s not a mental disorder (the burden of proof is on you since it hasn’t been considered one since 1973). But what the hell, http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/ That’s just one I feel like going through the trouble of providing for you on disqus.
4) Oh wow, you found a few single instances of kids not feeling adequately loved by their same-sex parents. They even said “I can’t speak for all children of same-sex parents”, but I guess that won’t stop you from peddling junk science, will it? Maybe it’s just my lower-middle class upbringing, but let’s assume for a second that opposite-sex parents can provide something that same sex parents can’t. Just how far on the heirarchy of needs is “A mother and father”? My biggest desires for parents was to financially provide for me and educate me. The genitals of my parents were very low on my list of things I would have cared about. You think I haven’t heard all of these “fearless” children of same-sex parents who spoke out about their experiences. The problems they claim they had are either a) character flaws of the same-sex parents themselves, that are certainly not unique to same-sex parenting b) really not a big fucking deal. Your mother is not the only female role model you can have, and neither is your father.
LifeSiteNews.com is a great website to use if you want to seriously look like an idiot.
5) First of all, you’re wrong about that. Recently, a Christian tried to force a baker to write an anti-gay message on their cake.
Second of all, Christians have done much worse things to gay people throughout history than make them put icing on cakes. While I do believe that people should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, you gotta admit, being forced to bake a cake in exchange for payment is kind of a long fucking way from persecution.
6) The Naked Communist is political theory written by a conservative political theorists. While it may be based on his employment as a CIA operative, you can’t ignore that this is a guy who has an agenda. While his works should be taken into consideration, using “promotion of homosexuality, degeneracy” as an example is but one of many of the things he talks about. He conflated homosexuality with degeneracy. Of course he’s going to think homosexuality was specifically a plan by the Communists. And even if it was, so what? All it shows is that Communists were no less homophobic than many Americans, for thinking that homosexuality was a bad thing. Just because someone uses it thinking it’s dangerous, doesn’t mean that it actually is and that none of us LGBTs wanted to go about our love lifes and be left the fuck alone.
7) LOLWUT. The Roman Empire fell in 476CE. Homosexual sex has been occuring there for several centuries before that. Nero was considered strange for being exclusively attracted to women. Also, J.D. Unwin’s book is as old as fuck. You really are scraping at the bottom of the barrel for talking points, aren’t you? Sexual restraint as Christians today would define it has never been a thing. But even accepting your claim that “sexual degeneracy” caused the fall of these societies, it doesn’t follow from that that homosexuality is one of them.
8) I didn’t provide nothing more than my own opinion, I largely pointed out the errors in the thinking behind your opinions.
Sorry, but Robert Spitzer actually took the time to listen to the LGBT activists. He was convinced it wasn’t a mental disorder. Of course, he used a *survey* to justify promoting the idea that homosexuals can change their sexuality, but he later recanted that once he retired. And the “twin” studies have not been debunked, sorry to say.
1: It’s not an “assumption” ray, since “science” is not a “something” that occurs naturally in the environment.
Google defines the word “science” as: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”
Observation and experiment imply intelligence…where is there an example of the animal kingdom putting science into motion, thereby making “science” natural?
How many examples of a car can you naturally originating within an environment?
conversely, how many examples in nature can you find in vitro fertilization taking plance? Answer: NONE.
This is why i said that scientific applicaiton is not natural, which is also why you are wrong to think otherwise.
2: Really?
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs”
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/
Yes of course…the CDC work is “flawed” but the kinsey “reseach” is undeniable…right? lol. Whatever floats your boat 🙂
3: No it’s not a perfectly valid definition, since that would imply that homosexuality is normal, and there is no science to undeniably show that it occurs naturally.
This is the equivalent of you coming up with “schizophobia” as a means of saying someone was prejudiced agains schizophrenics, for instance.
If there is no established proof that homosexuality is natural, than it is technically still a mental disorder regardless of what activists have been trying to claim and have successfully pased on in compromised medical circles.
No one has been arrested…? really?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
interestingly enough, a lot of the symptoms of schizophrenia can be found in homosexuals, such as: inappropriate emotions, paranoia, obsession with media, false beliefs about the body, beliefs of being powerful, etc. Unmedicated schizophrenics also tend to have difficulty telling the difference between what is in their head and what is real, leading them to act strangely.
I’ve shown you one instance of someone being arrested for speaking out against homosexuality, and there are plenty more…so it’s not paranoia. But YOU seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle qualifies as a homophobe, which means you believe that simple disagreement is the equivalent of hatred….THAT can qualify as paranoia, given the FACT that simple disagreement alone doesnt not imply hatred, or even fear.
Prove me wrong.
I didn’t have to address it because there’s nothing to address. There is no such thing as “homophobia” because homosexuality is not a natural condition. It’s like saying im afraid of schizophrenics, which would be natural, given that they can be dangerous. It doesnt necessarily imply someone is, just because they disagree with the lifestyle however. Your’s is a straw man argument if ever i’ve seen one.
btw, the “proof” of your yale link doesn’t work…it says “file not found” lol. Try again!
4:. Oh wow…maybe you forgot when you said this, when i talked about how homosexuality interferes with the normal psychological gender development of a child:
“No evidence for this claim has been established”
I provided you with evidence to answer your dismissive claim. Furthermore i didnt say every child goes through this, my original #4 point was to list as a negative what homosexuality can do to a child…again, straw man on your part.
Furthermore, how exactly is this “junk science” when there’s proof of it from the children themselves? Do you even know what that term means?
You fail to understand the necessary role of a Mother and Father, in your comment about their genitals. A Mother provides an emotional support system that is unique to her, just as a Father provides a pillar of support that is unique to him, in regards to the child. While the rewards are interchangeable, the degrees to which they are is not.
Furthermore, a child tends to learn proper psychological development from the gender he identifies with, the first and foremost represented by the parents. He or she identifies with him or her in regards to how to properly develop as a male or female, and learns what to look for in terms of positive qualities, from the opposite sexed parent.
For obvious reasons THIS is why homosexual parenting limits a child to having a redundancy of one sex…which prevents them from learning about themselves and others in a proper formative setting. Peer influence or media inculcation is a poor substitute for this teaching, which begins at home and is most vital during a child’s early years.
For you to therefore blow their concerns off as meaningless, because of your own bias and to blow off my point as therefore irrelevant, is telling, since i was again, not saying that all children go through this, i was saying that this is a potential consequence of homosexual pretend parenting.
Your remarks therefore are red herring in nature, especially when you try to blow off lifesite
How about the research of professor Mark Regenerus?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
I can’t wait to see how creative you get in blowing his research off…smh
5:) Firstly, please post the link to this claim so i can verify it for myself, until then it’s no more than hyperbole on your part.
2ndly, you don’t seem to realize that persecution doesnt necessarily occur full swing. In Germany the jews had their rights eroded little by little until they were completely taken away by hitler’s final acts.
No business owner should be forced to do business with a client that is not covered by the CR Act of 64.
6: “you cant ignore that this is a guy who has an agenda”
…What agenda? Is this how you dismiss everyone you disagree with? “they have an agenda” …what about the homosexual agenda to spread the belief that homosexuality is natural? That homosexual parents are just as good at parenting as hetero parents? That homosexual Marriage is constitutional? Wait, that’s not pushing an “agenda”..right? Wrong.
There is more proof that there is an actual agenda there than anything you can prove about the author of TNC. I have provided just a brief example of that.
Just because someone thinks homosexuality is a degenerate lifestyle does not mean they are wrong, since people can have that view about a great many other things, such as infantilism, eating feces, etc. You’re again blowing off the evidence to support that there is a legitimate view of homosexuality as a philosophical weapon used and used against the US specifically by the communists. It should therefore be condemned with equal fervor that most people do with instances of incest and polgamy, for society’s sake.
7: Seriously, this is what you use to debate me on intellectual grounds? Curse words and dismissive statements? Did i not say that homosexuality was not “solely to blame”…did you skip that part?
“Sexual restraint…never been a thing”
Oh really? Guess you skipped the history class were they taked about the puritans, eh? Or maybe the virtues of colonial America? facepalm.
If it doesnt follow that homosexuality is not a degeneracy, then please show me why is it not a degeneracy. Show me how it occurs naturally, and is therefore a legitimate lifestyle.
“jd unwin’s books are old as…”
sigh, this is sad. Do you even read books? Sex and culture is where most of his research regarding the thematic premise is located.
8: Sigh…unless you can provide undeniable evidence proving your position, you’ve done nothing more than provide an OPINION…which is NOT a fact.
It’s very possible Spitzer convinced himself it wasnt possible to go from homosexual to straight, and he was likely pressured into taking that position. It goes without saying that my view is the least popular one in America right now, and simply having it will get me attacked. A Man like him would be even more fiercely attacked by those who have sold their soul to the belief that homosexuality can’t be cured.
newsflash..former homosexuals exist..they are in a group called PFOX
http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/
The twin studies haven’t been debunked you say? Ok so show me where the study proved that if one twin was homo the other was going to be homo every time? I’ll be waiting.
Finished editing, yet? I caught you just as you were writing this and I’m
hoping I don’t have to type shit all over again.
1.Well, see, here’s the thing. You asked “where is there an example of the
animal kingdom putting science into motion”? We, human beings, we ARE a part of
the animal kingdom. It’s for this reason I reject the claim that in order for
something to be natural, animals other than humans have to be seen doing it. I
understand that there are dictionaries that say that nature precludes human
activity, but dictionaries only capture a wide range of a word’s use.
Of course, this is all consequential. Regardless of whether or not you think
humans are separate from, or apart from nature, I want to understand what your
argument is. Should human beings behave MORE like non-human animals, or should
human beings behave LESS like non-human animals? Or should we factor non-human
animals, or being “natural” into a discussion about whether or not a sexuality
is wrong?
At any rate, as I’ve established before, animals engage in homosexuality
whether you “agree” with it or not.
2. Yes of course…the CDC work is “flawed” but the kinsey
“reseach” is undeniable…right? lol. Whatever floats your boat 🙂
I don’t think Kinsey’s research is undeniable. I don’t think anything is
undeniable. Some of what he said was speculation, some of what he said was
well-researched, and for all I know, some things he said may have been
debunked. All I know is, the CDC fucking ADMITS their study is flawed. They got
a convenience sample. But even assuming that their study is undeniable, all it
really says is that most HIV cases are MSM. That doesn’t imply that most MSM
have HIV.
3.
“No it’s not a perfectly valid definition, since that would imply that
homosexuality is normal, and there is no science to undeniably show that it
occurs naturally.
This is the equivalent of you coming up with “schizophobia” as a
means of saying someone was prejudiced agains schizophrenics, for instance.”
Okay, so you don’t understand what qualifies something as a phobia. Regardless
of whether or not something is “normal” (what exactly do you mean by normal? I
notice you bigots love to use ambiguous terminology that requires people back
you into a corner to clarify what the hell it is you mean), that’s not a
criteria for determining something to be a phobia as recognized by the DSM. Not
that I think homophobia is or should be, but at least know what the fuck your
talking about. Phobias as defined by the DSM are seen as *literally*
debilitating fears, regardless of how likely it is to occur in real life.
“This is the equivalent of you coming up with “schizophobia” as a
means of saying someone was prejudiced agains schizophrenics, for instance.”
Well, what would be wrong with that? Prejudice against people who have
schizophrenia is wrong.
“If there is no established proof that homosexuality is natural, than it is
technically still a mental disorder”
Okay, so let’s add “mental disorder” to the list of things you don’t understand
the criteria for. It’s not “technically a mental disorder” if there’s no “established
proof that homosexuality is natural” (which, according to your definition,
something done by the animal kingdom, it is). This is a non-sequitur.
“interestingly enough, a lot of the symptoms of schizophrenia can be found
in homosexuals, such as: inappropriate emotions, paranoia, obsession with
media, false beliefs about the body, beliefs of being powerful, etc.
Unmedicated schizophrenics also tend to have difficulty telling the difference
between what is in their head and what is real, leading them to act strangely.”
These are all things you can easily say about any marginalized group. But of
course, you’re a sick fuck with an agenda against homosexuality, so you’ll
conflate correlation with causation. Homophobes give LGBT people every reason
to be paranoid, have inappropriate emotions, or obsession with media, and then
blame the victim.
“No one has been arrested…? really?”
Well, I was referring to the United States, really. I don’t doubt that
repression of freedom of speech is something that occurs very often in Europe,
particularly the UK. But it IS paranoia to assume that the “gay agenda” wants
to prevent you from criticizing homosexuality, when there have been several gay
rights activisits that have spoken out against such freedom of speech abuses,
including the very one you linked me to. But yes. The United Kingdom has very
silly abuses of freedom of speech, I won’t deny that. But that’s not any “gay
agenda’s” fault.
“But YOU seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle qualifies
as a homophobe, which means you believe that simple disagreement is the
equivalent of hatred.”
Well, I don’t. But here’s the thing. And once again, here comes more of the
vagueness that justifies my belief that what you have is not a “simple
disagreement”. You insist on calling it a lifestyle, even after I explained to
you that it’s not. A lifestyle entails a wide variety of activities,
homosexuality is a preference, not a lifestyle. You also have a tendency, like
many other homophobes, to use ambiguous language, like “normal”, “natural”, “disagreement”.
You have a tendency to get your information from sources like LifeSiteNews,
people known for promoting anti-gay spin stories.
What do you mean when you say “disagree with homosexuality”? You mean you don’t
want to engage in it? Well, nobody’s fucking asking you to. Lol. And if they
are, you can tell them to fuck off and it will be of NO cost to you. If you’re
saying you don’t think people should do it? Well, it depends. Is it for
religious reasons? Then, well, I don’t think you’re being hateful. I think you’re
an ideologue. But at least if people say their reasons for being against
homosexuality are religious, at least they’re not trying to justify their
bigotry with science like you’re doing. If you have legitimate concerns about
the practices gay men are known for engaging in, like anal sex? You’re probably
just ignorant about how that’s not homosexuality as a whole. But your concern
is with anal sex, not homosexuality. There could be many reasons why people “disagree”
with homosexuality. It could be religious. It could be honest, yet ignorant
assumptions that gay sex can’t be practiced safely. For this, education is
usually required. But after being proven wrong, you still insist on “not
agreeing with homosexuality”, and your reasons aren’t religious, well.. you don’t
have much of an excuse for being a bigot, do you?
Nobody is just going to say “Yeah, I hate gay people”. So I don’t take people’s
word for it when they say they don’t hate gays, and neither do many of us. That’s
probably why you think we accuse anyone who disagrees with us as hateful. It’s
not because we want to silence you. It’s because we know that people who think
like you are completely full of shit. If you ask me? I don’t think what you
have is hatred. But I do think you have an agenda to make homosexuality out to
be a bad thing. Maybe you have religious reasons. Maybe you feel concerned for
your own sexuality. I don’t know, I don’t care. All I know is, I know your
arguments are completely full of shit. Your arguments are either a) recycled
concerns, like the naturalistic fallacy b) saying homosexuality as a whole is
wrong based solely on how some members of the LGBT community treat themselves
or other people. I’ve already kind of established why I think those arguments
are dumb.
“I provided you with evidence to answer your dismissive claim. Furthermore i didnt say every child goes through this, my original #4 point was to list as a negative what homosexuality can do to a child…again, straw man on your part.”
Well, I’m not sure why you would argue that homosexuality CAN do the thing that you described, since it certainly isn’t something unique to homosexuality. I’m not straw manning you. To say that homosexual parenting CAN do this do a child seems unworthy of consideration.
“Furthermore, how exactly is this “junk science” when there’s proof of it from the children themselves? Do you even know what that term means?”
Can you really expect children to know how certain interactions with certain people caused them to be a certain way? There’s a reason
“You fail to understand the necessary role of a Mother and Father, in your comment about their genitals. A Mother provides an emotional support system that is unique to her, just as a Father provides a pillar of support that is unique to him, in regards to the child”
While I won’t doubt the uniqueness of emotional support to the mother, it’s not to such a degree that a male can’t provide a similar one. Same thing for a female. Men can’t breastfeed, that’s pretty much the only concrete difference I know of. Save for heavy physical labor, women can do mostly what men do. Of course, I’m no expert on child psychology, but I’d like to think that parents who certainly aren’t having children by accident will do what is best for their child’s development.
“Furthermore, a child tends to learn proper psychological development from the gender he identifies with, the first and foremost represented by the parents. He or she identifies with him or her in regards to how to properly develop as a male or female, and learns what to look for in terms of positive qualities, from the opposite sexed parent.
For obvious reasons THIS is why homosexual parenting limits a child to having a redundancy of one sex…which prevents them from learning about themselves and others in a proper formative setting. Peer influence or media inculcation is a poor substitute for this teaching, which begins at home and is most vital during a child’s early years.”
Why? And come on.. are we seriously worried about what the child ability to interact with people based on gender in his earliest years?
“For you to therefore blow their concerns off as meaningless, because of your own bias and to blow off my point as therefore irrelevant, is telling, since i was again, not saying that all children go through this, i was saying that this is a potential consequence of homosexual pretend parenting.”
I don’t think their concerns are meaningless. I think their concerns are based solely on the importance of gender roles. I can imagine that if you have two moms, it could really suck to not have a dad. It would also suck if they didn’t also appreciate it if the two moms took care of him to the best of his ability.
“How about the research of professor Mark Regenerus?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…
I can’t wait to see how creative you get in blowing his research off…smh”
Well, here’s some creativity for you: How about the fact that his operational definitions were surprisingly broad? Like, “gay fathers” and “lesbian mothers”. Basically, any father who has ever had a gay experience, married or not, single or not, would have been counted in these numbers. He wasn’t studying children with same-sex couples as parents, he was studying “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”. That’s just ONE of the problems with the study that I feel like entertaining for now. But it’s cute when people show me Mark Regenerus as if that’s going to devastate me. I’m not even sure if I should give Mark the benefit of doubt anymore.
“Firstly, please post the link to this claim so i can verify it for myself, until then it’s no more than hyperbole on your part.”
What, about the cake?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/
“2ndly, you don’t seem to realize that persecution doesnt necessarily occur full swing. In Germany the jews had their rights eroded little by little until they were completely taken away by hitler’s final acts.”
Yeah, well, if anyone’s going to claim Christians are being persecuted by using the Jews in Germany as a standard, they’re not doing themselves any favors.
“No business owner should be forced to do business with a client that is not covered by the CR Act of 64.”
Yeah, no sympathy for this position. Either anyone can be discriminated against for any reason, or no discrimination is. At least, discrimination that is irrelevant to the service health. There’s no reason that the non-discrimination parts of the Civil Rights Act of 64 are any more valid than one that prevents discrimination against someone based on their sexual orientation.
“6: “you cant ignore that this is a guy who has an agenda”
…What agenda? Is this how you dismiss everyone you disagree with? “they have an agenda””
All I was saying is that, since he’s a conservative, he’s going to lump in homosexuality and degeneracy, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is consequential. I quite clearly used other facts and arguments in #6 to describe why exactly I think it’s disingenuous to bring Communism up.. nice job addressing those, by the way.
dirty pool ray, you responded before i was done. That is poor form on your part.
I suggest you remove this comment and incorporate it into my last response to you. Unless of course you believe this is fair. Show me how logic fares in your mind.
Okay, hold on.
edited
1: we are technicallty part of the animal kingdom, but your confusion is in believing that our TECHNOLOGIES are somehow natural as a consequential effect. Sorry, that ship doesn’t sail on the ocean of reason any time soon.
Given the pov you have, you could theoretically make anything “natural” simply by saying humans “did it”
Deforestation? natural because “humans did it” chernobyl?…must be natural too because humans “did it”
Sorry ray, but that makes no sense. We are part of the animal kingdom but our technology is not. We are sentient (unlike animals) and our intelletual fabrications are therefore not natural, but artificially created in order to fuel a sentient purpose.
For the record, just because certain animals (a thousand or so speciec out of millions lol) engage in homosexual -like behaviors, it does NOT mean it is natural, anymore than finding a dead body in the woods means that the body originated there naturally. Please provide me with your “evidence” that animal homosexuality is natural, so that i can properly rebut.
2: A lot of the kinsey research has been debunked, namely because he used a large percentage of those with an alternative lifestyle to pass them off as a mainstream demographic factor. In addition, kinsey’s contamination of the objective research (through direct participation) calls into question that objectivity. Kinsey was homosexual or bisexual, depending on the numbers involved. That alone invalidates any scientific research on his part, because it invites the possibility (reality, with kinsey) if bias.
Also, where did the CDC study say it was “flawed?” Maybe i missed that part. According to my research they have said MSM account for at least 54% of the HIV demographic…that is more than half, technically making them the most to have it, and making you incorrect for disagreeing.
3: “Normal” indicates something that can be proven to originate naturally. For ex: being Black is normal because the race has been determined to originate from the Africa cradle of life through historical and genetic study. There is NO legitimate evidence to support that homosexuality originates naturally, which is why it cannot be considered as normal and the burden of proof is on those who believe it does. As i said before, even the APA had to change their minds when they said homosexuality was naturally occurring, because the concrete evidence to support that premise did and does not exist. Theories are not facts, rumors are not proof.
A phobia as you take it to mean, is simply inapplicable in a practical extension of your beliefs regarding homosexuality. People who are opposed to the lifetsyle are not “bigots” because they oppose it, because it is not natural and has not been determined to be natural through any legitimate sense.
Let me clarify it for you: a debilitating “fear” of blacks is true prejudice, because it is based on something that is natural to the human condition. Being opposed to homosexuality is not “bigoted” because you oppose a lifestyle that is not naturally based in the human condition…it is the result of a mental disorder that should be regarded as such.
I dont think you understand the meaning of a “non sequitur” when applied to me. How exactly did i offer a non sequitur when i said homosexuality is not natural (no proof to say for certain it isnt) and given the evidence to the contrary (which you are helping to provide, incidentally) how is it also a non sequitur to therefore consider it (still) a mental disorder? Your “logic” doesnt compute, ray.
“But of
course, you’re a sick fuck with an agenda against homosexuality”
This is what i mean…you just demonstrated through polemics in motion of why homosexuals and schizophrenics sometime overlap. You’ve cursed at me twice and have taken on a very deliberate victimization complex, which can technically qualify you as experiencing paranoia. Calling me “sick” while engaging in an unnatural lifestyle is also highly amusing…you are irony in motion as well.
Btw, given your statement that a phobia is a “debilitating fear” would you therefore say that you have a phobia against those who disagree with your lifestyle? Shall we call that “allodoxophobia?” I would certainly tend to think so, since you enjoy coming here despite the fact that you are not likely to find a remark that syncs with your own. Perhaps a masochist allodoxophobic would be more applicable, then 🙂
You want a US example? Sure, i can provide that too http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/christian-preacher-jailed-for-praying-here%E2%80%99s-the-rest-of-the-story-%E2%80%A6/
4: I didn’t say that all homosexuals want to curtail free speech, however the more vocal ones and especially the militant ones. do. This is why once homosexual Marriage becomes legel in every state, they will start coming after the church in force, arguing that they cannot legally deny “religious” homosexuals Marriage because they enjoy tax exempt status. They will then try to use the gov’t to force ALL churches to offer homo marriage.
Remember this prophecy of mine ray…when you see it happen, you will know i was right…not that you will care of course.
I call it a “lifestyle” because it is again, not proven to be normally occurring. You may believe otherwise but that’s all it is…a BELIEF. There are plenty of people who are no longer homo who said it was just a “phase” or a vice they were suffering through, that now live hetero lives. If it’s not naturally occurring aka natural, if it does not have a permanent circumstance (like a genetic disorder) then you can’t say it’s permanent, because if it’s a sexual fashion for one it can’t be a genetic fashion for another, science doesn’t work that way, genes don’t discriminate based on personal preferences.
If you are going to label every site that condemns the homo lifestyle as “spin” (like you did with lifesite news then you will just be playing partisan hackery games, but i very well. For the purpose of true objectivity, i will refrain from posting evidences from organizations that are rooted in a Christian affiliation and have a direct theme against homosexuality…(the exception is persons who are Christian AND have a medical or psychological background) HOWEVER, you cannot provide me with evidence culled from pages rooted in a homosexual affiliation, ONLY pages that are truly objective (medical sites, basically, with no direct involvement by the researcher) the exception i made earlier will also stand for you. (This won’t apply if we are not posting to provide facts, just posting articles to support our personal viewpoints)
Ray i have no “bigotry” to speak of, technically speaking you seem to be the bigot here between us, since you enjoy cursing at me simply because i hold a difference of opinion with you and aside from the occasional condescending remark, i have treated you with far more respect than you have me.
For the record, my opposition to homosexuality is based on constitutional, medical, psychological, historical and socialogical view points (which i will be only to happy to provide in full here) in addition to the “religious” one. I rarely use that one except to further emphasize my point.
You can blow off my view of homo anal sex, but what you can’t blow off is the FACT that routinely engaging in it does increase disease transmission exponentially, hence homosexuals having much larger infected rates than non homosexuals. There is causality there, even if you choose not to see it because you (like kinsey) are too deeply involved in the lifestyle to judge it objectively.
ray, your claim that homo sex can be practiced safely ignores the fact that engaging in it increases the risks to health…its no coincidence that homos have so many more instances of std transmission. Your argument is the equivalent of saying there’s a safer way to practice “russian roulette” by counting the number of shots left in the barrel. It’s a specious argument that ignores the medical reality of it. The FACT is, if it could be practiced safely, there would be far less homosexuals infected. You may very well have the perfect and SAFEST relationship, but it can NEVER be considered safe or as safe as a hetero relationship, because of the unconventional manners of sex involved, combined with the propensity for comorbid mental issues that most homos exhibit (including you)
If you can prove how homosexual sex can be practiced safely, regardless of facts to the contrary, please feel free to do so.
4: Only with the homosexual parenting does the unique circumstance of having access to only one parent become a given rather than a possibility. Also, in those relationships, unique circumstances exclusive to it manifest…or maybe you think its “natural” for a “parent” to want their child to undergo a sex change? Where do straight parents do this? find me one example of this…which any sane person would consider SICK: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/controversial-therapy-for-young-transgender-patients-raises-questions/
“Can you really expect children to…” the fundamental flaw in your comment here, is not realizing that these are ADULTS who are coming forward after they have experienced the trauma as a child. You can’t simply blow them off because they were children experiencing this.
I’m starting to wonder what trauma you have possibly blocked when you were a child, that has led you to believe your current lifestyle is normal…molestation, perhaps?
“And come on.. are we seriously worried about what the child ability to interact with people based on gender in his earliest years?”
YES! These kids learn how to be the best parents precisely because of the kinds of people they come across, male AND female! Children raised with a lack of one grow up at a disadvantage (formative wise) and with a propensity for a comorbid effect that may not be properly diagnosed until after it manifested and run its damage. It’s no coincidence then, that they may also follow in the footsteps of their pretend parents by becoming homosexual themselves. (but i thought it was genetic?)
Do you really believe that the fundamental differences between male and female parents is simply related to physical characteristics? If so, then you are ill informed. Men and Women are fundamentally different, behavior wise, emotionally, and so forth.
I knew you would come up with a creative dismissal of the Regenerus study, and you did not disappoint.
“Basically, any father who has ever had a gay experience, married or not, single or not, would have been counted in these numbers”
So what’s the actual difference between a single ss parent, and a married one? Arent they BOTH introducing lifestyles to the child that they would not normally be exposed to otherwise? And please quote for me where Regenerus used these limitations, just to make sure that you read the article, and that you didnt outsource your response from some anti regenerus site.
5: Ok i do see that article now. I want to correct you though, its an anti homosexuality message, not an anti “gay” one. There is a difference, semantics wise. And the reason for that is in the link you provided
“The purpose of his request, Jack explained to the evangelical publication, was to see if the Colorado Civil Rights Commission would handle what World characterized as “discrimination against Christians” the same as it had handled a previous charge that another Colorado bakery participated in “discrimination against gays.” ”
In other words, he wanted to test the legal system to see if they would handle his discrimination case the same way they would a homosexual one against christians. It seems that they are, but we will wait and see for the results.
Unlike you i am not biased… i believe this bakery owner has the right to deny this service based on the first amendment, and also because the plaintiff is not being denied his religious rights because he is trying to force his (religious) rights onto someone else at the expense of theirs…deep down i think he understands this, but he is wanting to make a point, which i can understand. It goes without saying i can find a hundred cases of christians being forced to engage in business with homos against their will, and technically they have more legal ground to stand on, since the 64 Civil rights act protects against discrminations on religion, not sexual orientation.
“Yeah, well, if anyone’s going to claim Christians are being persecuted by using the Jews in Germany as a standard, they’re not doing themselves any favors”
Well if you really think there are no similarities, you arent paying attention. We get death threats, random acts of violence and hate filled mail lobbed at us, and many of you call for our death, the evidence of this can be found on almost any thread where christians are found to be arguing with homosexuals. While there are some fringe element son our side that respond in a vile fashion, they are the exception and not the norm, whereas with your side, they are the norm and not the exception. The prop 8 antichristian incidents are proof.
“There’s no reason that the non-discrimination parts of the Civil Rights Act of 64 are any more valid than one that prevents discrimination against someone based on their sexual orientation.”
You cant lump homosexuality in there, because its not in the wording. That is key.
6: Just because he is a conservative it doesnt mean he has an agenda…sorry no sale. Not all conservatives are necesarily Christian, most of them but not all. If you had said Christian your point would be more valid, but as it stands you label anyone that disagrees as having an “agenda” but anyone that agrees does not…right? that’s just partisan bias.
And can you PLEASE break up your responses into concise paragraphs?…Like i did? Sheesh.
God says it’s a sin, Good enough for me.
No offense but when he points out how those who are comfortable with their masculinity can take it up the but, your response shows how insecure you are. Also you seem to confuse his suggestion for sexual behavior for sexual orientation.
This troll has been annoying Daily Stormer and Victims of Gay Bullying. HE is a mental patient…
Troll ZOGBOT Jacob:
http://cipworldwide.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Jacob-Blaustein-150×150.jpg
You don’t know when to quit do you?
If you are going to keep trolling this dailystormer website like you trolled VGB, and like you even got booted of skeptics forum, I’m going to keep telling everyone where you live. If you want to role play the victim just because I share this publicly available information about you, as you use your real name it isn’t hard to find. If you want to play that victim, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL DOING HERE TROLLING AFTER YOU WERE GIVEN YOUR MARCHING ORDERS? As you know I’m not in America, but you may tempt fate if you keep coming on here.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8ec2195790b8d2ca5956058f32bfd0442de9923743f0d5c7fe8d4192f9d72a38.png
Here’s news about this clown proving he has a mental ilness and barely passed college with his jew charity for mentally handicapped austic special people, who couldn’t get in college the way normal people do.
http://cipworldwide.org/cip-blog/cip-amherst-students-thrive-at-daemen-college/
If you start defending or “trying to debunk” some video that’s critical of some gay child fucking dog fucking boy murder plotting faggot cop that even the FBI put 3 press releases out on Christopher Kent Bowersox, that just also happened to stop me seeing my first born child being born, that I latter thrashed in court you are going to get an arse whooping boy.
See the story on this @gaydads baby flesh trader employed fag zogbot here: https://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/scoutmaster-accused-of-boy-rape-the-same-day-boyscouts-lift-ban-on-fags/
As an employee of @gaydads baby flesh trader, he knew that story was real. To equate what this little jew turd did, he teamed up with a fake lawyer to make a fabricated police complaint, that will be dealt with shortly as I recorded all correspondence with his fake lawyer with delusions of grandeur friend Matthew Ellard – see here. If I was bad as this evil little jewfag I’d first find the autistic guy that raped his mother and say how wonderful he is (that would make us even for him praising Bakersfield pedo cop Bowersox), then I’d make a false police complaint against him for good measure.
https://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/interesting-post-by-my-latest-online-stalker-matthew-ellard-celebrating-the-death-of-a-gay-jew-who-dies-from-public-sex-with-a-black-man-aids/
And below is the mainstream news coverage of the gay child fucking dog sex loving boy murder plotting criminal fag cop this clown tried to defend.
Here’s a tribute video to a gay animal sex loving JIDF activist just like Jacob. I can see this video was inspired by real people. Art imatiting life indeed.
Here is why Russia made those “anti-gay” pedophile anti-propaganda laws..
Australian Gay Marriage Activists raped a Russian baby – the back story is here. Fag member for Sydney Alex Greenwich MP called Russia “Homophobic” in his letter to Bob Pedo Carr for cutting off supply of white skinned boys for $5000 after one US and one Australian gay marriage activist “gaydads” couple bought one, that were members of Alex’s Australian Marriage Equality and filled the little boys passport up with stamps on a global Gay Marriage Activists baby fuck tour, that was made possible by the Australian government breaking it’s own requirements for DNA tests for surrogate parents, and they were of no biological relation. See the link to hear a JEW ABC journalist praise the baby fuckers and listen to them call Russia, Australia and America “homophobic” for delaying their 20 month anal child rape and since two week old child sex toy from leaving Russia… with love. Who can deny love right? Gay marriage is just two men loving each-eachother and fucking young Russia orphans. The next photo is from a Singapore Gay Activist’s blog who posted this after the baby rapists were arrested to use this child rape victim as a poster boy for gay rights and decrimilizing sodomy in Singapore. That’s right – gay marraige activists are using gaydads babyrape victims as a poster boy for their movement. FYI The Signapore government just prosecuted this faggot and first man to own a gay orgyroom sauna for scandalizing the courts and defaming the former prime minister. It looks like they need to finish him off.
https://victimsofgaybullying.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/8235e-newton-truong.jpg
Gay Dads BabyRape Victim being used as gay marriage poster-boy after the rapists arrested by world famous gay activist here -> http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/pastor-ambushes-goh-chok-tong-with-demand-to-defend-377a/
Singapore government prosecuting the faggot: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/03/singapore-court-fines-blogger-for-comments-on-gay-sex-cases/
https://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/when-two-tribes-go-to-war-russia-vs-samesame-vgb-v-mattakersten-h%d0%b0%d1%81%d1%82%d0%be%d1%8f%d1%89%d0%b0%d1%8fc%d0%b5%d0%bc%d1%8c%d1%8f-stormer9k-realfamily-v-gaydads/
And remember my dad and my friend are being prosecuted for the crime of critising published gay marriage activists raping babies. You must not dislike the act of gay marriage activist baby sex, because you must not vilify boylovers.net in action. You must not critize gay parenting. All of them need their little boys and the state says you must not get in NAMBLA and boylovers.net way (see the link above – or see the caselaw John Sunol V Garry Burns 25 June 2015, compared to this video http://tinyurl.com/abcplugspedos – it’s a crime to link to it 3 faggot judges ruled)
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/558b3c8ee4b0f1d031de9eb8
https://i1.wp.com/i.imgur.com/JxcQqwa.png
I knew some day we would need a ‘straight pride’…
Chris Brown, LOL. Bad example of a man.
over my dead body….