Teenage YouTube prankster enrages feminists and white knights with fake hand ass pinch funny video. Just a laugh, or sexual harassment at its worst?
As would be expected, the female comments are divided between good looking/supportive, who see it as a joke, and the ugly bitch/feminist types who are screaming sexual harrassment.
Meanwhile, I guess the Men's Human Rights position would be that these attractive women are molesting the boy's hand with their asses and that HE is going to be scarred for life!
A male commentator gives the perfect reply below the article of an entitled
cunt princess, who whines that men are not what they used to be and are now simply pathetic wimps who don't ask women out on dates or buy them free drinks. Be warned, it truly is a sickening article, but here is the priceless reader response :
look, princess... you are not entitled to free shit, you're not entitled to have things done for you, you're not entitled to dictate how and when we "grow up" and you're not entitled to tell us how to dress.
you women pushed us away, you called us "pervy", "creepy" when we didn't have the requisite amount of cash/belongings etc.
instead of saying "I'm not interested" to men who ask you out that you don't find attractive - you called us harassers and made utterly ridiculous claims that we were a part of "rape culture"
you make crass jokes about men being in pain, laugh when one gets his dick cut off,band together when one needs bullying and almost orgasm when one has his children ripped from him.
then there is the blaming shit you all seem to do - you're doing it right now in this article - your bait is so unappealing and rancid that we're to blame for not "having our shit together"
you want us to date you? you want us to chase you? you want us to pay for you? no, not anymore.
you say we're scared of you. yes, you're dam right we're scared of you. who wouldn't be scared of someone who can, with one false accusation (which seems to be happening more and more these days) ruin our entire lives. who wouldn't be scared of a pathological lying psychopath!!?
The only time that women ever say good things about men is the day after they die.
you brought this on yourselves - it's up to you to fix it princess.
Meet a 22-year-old, southern criminology student with a three-year-old child. She calls herself the Femitheist and has a blog, YouTube channel, and is writing a book all about the “importance” of reducing the male population to roughly 1-10% in order to achieve world peace and “true equality.” Somehow, she expects this to end war, rape, and violence in general. Though this seems like trying to end violence by committing violence – because it is – she asserts that it is “the only logical solution.” Everything she proposes to do for, to, and against men (and women) directly violates the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Terrifyingly, she has spawned a gaggle of followers that believe in selective breeding, male-only abortions, and an International Castration Day. She asserts that men of all ages would need to attend a castration ceremony, and murdered if they refuse. Don’t worry, though, the men’s spouses and mothers have the option to “milk the male” before castration if they want a sperm sample
The 'Femitheist' is a groupie of the child torture porn apologist David Futrelle.
The manosphere response to the recent 'fappening' has demonstrated once again that the basic ideas promoted at this site for the last 7 years are now generally accepted as being manifestly obvious. I doubt if I or my readers can take much credit for this. Sexual Trade Union theory, or 'Pussy Cartel' theory is so manifestly the right explanation of what feminism is that as soon as an online movement such as the 'Red Pill' reached sufficient numbers for it's thousands of members to be required to adopt certain fundamental premises, rather than engaging in perpetual intellectual dick sizing - each individual believing he is the special one who has 'feminism sussed', then the blindingly obvious truth that feminism is simply about maintaining the supply and price of pussy was certain to become widely accepted.
Two interesting articles on sexual economics :
(The above graph doesn't take into account the skewing of prices when Jack is in town, lol)
Best PUA videos of recent weeks :
(note the first comment and reply)
The Pakistani-on-'white' gang-rape culture further revealed in Rotherham – already officially well known back in 2002 and the subject of two reports – is a window on the core reality of forced sex (that is, rape as popularly well understood, and not the usually cross-signals or retrospective withdrawal of consent that is most 'acquaintance rape'): it occurs across a major in-group/ out-group divide. 'Normal' males do not appear to force sex on females within what they perceive to be their own community. Yes, in certain scenarios, such as a war theatre, given certain conditions men may force sex when the target would be clearly belonging to a very distinct out-group (not the sort of arbitrary 'minimal' group created in social psychology experiments). 'White' girls were not part of the community of these Pakistani men, as they perceived things; and evidently were regarded as 'fair game' -- like ISIS warriors view non-Wahhabi females.
What a wonderful product of the imposition of non-needed and non-desired immigration of people of at least in some senses an alien culture, 'socially engineered' by politicians motivated by hatred for the masses in their 'identity politics' (/'PC').
As highlighted in the report, and as everyone knows would always have been the case, the 'race card' was shown to anyone so much as hinting they might make a fuss about people who, though of the politically hated class 'men', happened to be of an ethnic minority. The critical factor in why the problem persisted unaddressed for so long is the 'identity politics' (/'PC') imperative not to raise an issue in respect of a 'group' identified as 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed'.
Yet … and yet, there is another major factor at play here. The hysteria over supposed child sex abuse in the wake of the appalling travesties of justice that is Yewtree – and not excluding Savile himself – almost certainly will have hugely inflated the figures given as to the scale of what has gone on in Rotherham.
Then there is the wanton abuse of the term 'paedophile', when this rests on the politically-driven redefinition of 'child' to include females several years over the age of puberty and therefore by meaningful definition not children at all; and on the persistent wilful failure to understand that the term refers to an exclusive sexual preference.
It will in time come to be a staple of comic turns that 'identity politics' /'PC' works in its 'intersectionality' [sic] to heap malicious farce upon malicious farce, such that the absurd politics turns on its own faux 'groups' just as in its creation it turned on 'the workers', formerly lauded but then shunned and abused for not swallowing the political baloney. Not, though, I would suppose, until after the whole thing has blown up in the faces of the bigoted elitist-separatist political-Left fools who built the obscene politics that has led to such 'community' disaster, that any other sort of fool could see coming decades ago.
'Identity politics' (sometimes dubbed 'political correctness') is the result of a political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people (in Europe and 'the West'), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in European 'revolution' or any real change through democracy. In shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and the gullibility of those adhering to it, and on to those the theory prescribed and predicted would have been the beneficiaries, if only they had responded accordingly ('the workers'); then the cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by this crisis to an extent could be salved.
The intellectual rationalisation of this was first by invoking Freud's discredited notion of 'repression' to attempt to explain a supposed impact on 'the workers' of 'capitalism' acting within the context of the family. With most workers being male, and the principal 'agents of social change' in a 'revolution' being envisaged as likewise, then the theoreticians had in mind the male as 'head' of the family. It was a simple extension in political-Left imagination for 'the worker' to change from being the putative conduit of the impact of 'capitalism' to its embodiment, leaving women to become the replacement supposed 'oppressed' and 'disadvantaged'. This implausible and unfalsifiable non-scientific nonsense mainly festered within academia until the co-option after 1968 by the political-Left of the seeming revolutionary US 'civil rights' movement. This added to the 'new oppressed' the category 'non-white', which like that of women could be envisaged as an inversion of a retrospective stereotype of 'the worker'. In the wake of the similarly seeming revolutionary Stonewall riots of 1969, the 'gay rights' lobby was also co-opted to further add to the abstract demonised aspects of 'the worker', now retrospectively stereotyped as male plus 'white' plus heterosexual.
The strands of the 'new oppressed' combined in a new (neo-Marxist) conceptualisation to account for these political shifts after the fact, and came to be termed 'identity politics' (or more pejoratively but accurately, 'cultural Marxism', and latterly dubbed 'modernising' [sic] in political parties). The deemed 'groups' replacing 'the workers' – subsequently expanded to embrace the disabled, the elderly, trans-sexuals and the obese – are abstractions rather than groups per se, and in any case far too heterogeneous to be in reality 'oppressed' or 'disadvantaged'; providing a window on the sophistry and origin of this politics as other than it purports.
The pretence to egalitarianism is perfect cover for what 'identity politics' actually is: the very perennial and ubiquitous elitist-separatism the political-Left ethos attacks and denies; rendered a quasi-religion, being an ideology in the wake of the Christian notion of 'the promised land' in the utopia/dystopia of equality-of-outcome. This represents a continuation of the process of a shift in religiosity from envisaging a 'god' as being in man's image, through the humanist deification of mankind, to worship of a supposed dynamic of teleological social change (originally understood in Marxism as a form of explicit cognition known as 'the dialectic'). 'Identity politics', in being both not what it pretends to be and now so widespread and entrenched across the whole and every facet of the establishment in Anglophone nations and 'the West' generally, can properly be regarded as the greatest political fraud in history.