Take your robo-wives -- please!

Build your own what?

So the good fellows over on MGTOWforums.com were discussing, as they so often do, the impending arrival of the sexy robot ladies, and some of the practical problems that are holding them back ("Simply getting a robot to walk is an incredible task"), when the commenter calling himself Spidey suddenly directed his attention to me.

Well, not me personally, but all the "women (and manginas) reading this thread" and thinking less-than-charitable thoughts about the robotophile crowd. "If these guys are "perverts" and "creeps" then shouldn't you be happy that they are releasing their urges on inanimate dolls rather then real human beings and hence not hurting anyone?" Spidey asked.

It's a good question, and I'd like to offer my humble answer, which is: YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Please, take these robot ladies, and do whatever it is you want to do to them, and leave the real women of this world out of it.

Not that Spidey would be much interested in my answer. I doubt he would believe it, as he has clearly convinced himself that the women of the world (and, by extension, the manginas) are pissed at this high-tech challenge to their pussy monopoly.  Speaking directly to the ladies, Spidey continued:

It's because you KNOW that a sex doll can easily compete with you, because these dolls will always get better, they will always come out with newer, better looking sex dolls while you will always grow uglier, fatter and older. These dolls take away the only thing you can provide a man and the one thing you will use to control and manipulate him - sex. Now you can no longer with hold sex when you are wrong in an arguement just to get your way plus these sex dolls are STD free, unlike your used up vagina. Also I am pretty sure you realise that the men who buy these very expensive sex dolls must obviously have money, it must infuriate you that all that money is going towards an inanimate object that is better then you

Honestly, I think that most women will be rather relieved that guys who complain about "used up vaginas" will be voluntarily puling themselves out of the dating scene. But, never mind, because Spidey's imaginary conversation with the ladies isn't over yet.

Now I am also sure most women will say "but these things are fake and they will never provide 'real love and companionship'". Well guess what? men don't want your love or companionship because your love is more fake then that provided by a virtual girl and your companionship is just as hollow. Is it "real love" when a woman f***s another man behind her husbands back, not because he has done anything wrong, only because she was bored or confused? how about when a woman f***s another man and pretends that the baby belongs to her hu

Let's just skip past the rest of that paragraph; life is short, and it was just more of the same. Let's try his next one:

As for companionship, men don't want a creature that enjoys watching them suffer. We don't want companoinship from a creature that demands everything from us but appreciates nothing. We don't want to come home to a creature that yells at us for not earning enough money or working hard enough and if we do earn enough money we get yelled at for working too mu

Yeah, same deal. Let's just move directly to his grand conclusion:

Yes ladies we would take a fake body and a fake personality over your aging body and narcissistic personality any day.

Trust me, Spidey, your personality isn't going to win any awards any time soon either.


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Tee Shirt Time

Inspired by these guys, I'm thinking of offering some Man Boobz t-shirts, and possibly some other cool blog swag, either through CafePress or one of its competitors. I'll either sell them at cost or donate whatever meager profits I make to some deserving charity.

My plan is to use some quotes from the boobs, maybe add some clever graphics. (One slogan per shirt.) So far here are some possibilities, and links to where they're from:

We hunted the mammoth to feed you

Don’t ever let a woman know your name, city or profession.

No sperm, no peace

Pussy cartel

And, from our good friend Yohan, referring to me:

On the brink of idiotism

Let me know what you think of these. And if you have some favorite quotes I haven't listed, post them below (with URL if you can track it down). The comments section here is fair game for quotes too.

Suggest away!

Also, if you've had experience with CafePress or one of its alternatives, let me know if it was good or bad. Thanks!

Manwiches

So I've been trying my best to make sense of a strange, turgid, conspiratorial post over on Rebuking Feminism, a blog run by a fellow calling himself Bwec who sometimes comments here.

This doozy of a sentence, loaded down with strange quasi-Marxist jargon and missing a couple of commas, will give you an idea of what I'm up against:

When females are the primary means of resource production themselves, when they own the means to male production (and thus transference of male resources without a fair social contract between men and women in marriage and thus divorce) plus own the means of human production i.e. total control over reproduction and conception the Matriarchy and dream of female supremacy will be complete.

The gist of it seems to be that, uh, women are taking over the world.

But there's one paragraph that suggests that women have an even more evil agenda than merely lording it over us men. If I'm reading it correctly, Bwec is suggesting that the ladies want to ... eat us.

If males served no other purpose than as food after mating she would surely consume us. It is this aspect of female nature which has been obscured as of late but men have known it since the beginning of time.

Yes, instead of wanting to make us sandwiches, they want to make us into sandwiches!

If this is true I would like to assure all female readers of this blog that, while I have good taste, I do not taste good.

Further Reading: The Worst of the Men's Rights Movement

From Paul Elam's site.

Here are links to, and brief excerpts of, some of the worst posts by Men's Rights activists and/or antifeminists I've run across in doing this blog. These are not random comments by random MRAs; they are all by people who have a history in the MRM. In most cases, they are fairly prominent names, at least within the online MRA community. A few of these posts will be familiar to readers of this blog.

Lest anyone accuse me of taking quotes out of context, I urge you to read the originals. As you'll see, none of these quotes are any more justifiable "in context" than they are here on their own.

If anyone out there has seen worse, please post a URL below. Conversely, if any of these posts have been publicly challenged by others in the MRM, I will happily post links alongside the original.

I am also taking nominations for a follow-up post, The Best of the MRM. Post URLs below.


Let's start with Paul Elam's charming "Bash A Violent Bitch Month" Post

The money quote:

In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

Immediately after this quote, he claims he's not "serious" about this, though apparently only because "it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers." My post on the subject is here. Here's another piece by Elam full of fantasies of violence against women.

Another by Elam: Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit!

Key quote:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

This post from Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer and Men's Rights activist best known for suing clubs that have "ladies nights," suggests that men may have to take up arms to win their, er, struggle:

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely.  But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. 

I wrote about Hollander's call to arms in If at first you don't succeed, shoot people.

And speaking of angry men and their guns, here's a post from Citizen Renegade, a Pick-Up Artist (PUA) site popular with MRAs: Game Can Save Lives It's about George Sodini, the misogynist killer who gunned down women at a health club a year ago. "Chateau" suggests that all would have been well if Sodini had learned how to be a Pick-Up Artist:

If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.

Actually, Sodini had taken at least one class from Don Steele, author of "How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35." The comments to Chateau's article are scarier than the article itself. For selected examples and commentary, see here.

Another from Citizen Renegade: Owning a Dog is Training for Owning a Woman

[P]roperly owning a dog is excellent training for properly owning a woman. The behavior of dogs and women is eerily similar, and their relation to man testifies to that.

Like dogs, women need to be led. They *want* to be led. In fact, though they will never admit it, women want to be owned by their men.

Other MRAs don't seem to be much interested in adult women at all. MRA Jay Hammers, a regular contributor to The Spearhead, has taken down his blog, but its worst moments live on in Google's cache. Perhaps the worst of the worst: Age of Consent is Misandry. Key quotes:

Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality.

Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex.

This post did get some criticism in the MRM. Here's one discussion.

And here's Hammers again, accusing other MRAs of being "pansies." 

One of Hammers' biggest defenders has been an antifeminist blogger by the nom-de-net of Schopenbecq, who is equally obsessed with the age of consent and what he sees as the superior attractiveness of teen girls. Here's one of his posts on the subject, which argues:

The age of consent has always been central to feminism. In fact, it has been its primary driving force right from the beginning. The purpose of this website is not to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from the present feminist age of 16. For one thing, there is little or no chance of that happening in this author’s lifetime. However, I have no shame whatsoever in stating my clear belief that the age of consent ought to be what it still technically is in the majority of major civilised nations – namely, 14.

In this post, he mocks any man who doesn't think Heather Locklear's 13-year-old daughter is hotter than Locklear herself:

Results of a poll on Schopenbecq's site.

Here, he argues that feminism is a "Sexual Trade Union," and seems to suggest that increasing the age of consent from 12 was bad thing :

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

More misogyny:

Anglobitch: Women, Self Awareness and the Guillotine of Bitterness

Post-feminist women have been so indoctrinated by specious polemics extolling their (largely imaginary) talents, that they truly believe their ‘achievements’ are somehow self-determined. This is why the loss of their physical charms wreaks such havok on them. Having been nurtured on feminist pipe dreams, the cutting realization that their youthful ‘success’ was entirely due to sexual allure must be galling indeed. ... Indeed, the staunch bitterness of middle-aged Anglo-American women can be entirely attributed to this realization:

It wasn’t your 'talent' and 'intelligence' that men admired: it was your sweet young pussy. That pussy-pass departed with your first wrinkle: live with it, bitch.

Heretical Sex: Never Date Western Women

Big cities like London, New York and Sydney are jam-packed with beautiful foreign girls from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. They are sexy, fun, good company and they treat men like human beings. They have not had their minds poisoned by feminist hate-speech. ... I urge all Western men to boycott Western Women if they can. Don't date them, don't marry them, don't have children with them. Find yourself a nice foreign girl, and find out what women should be like. If anyone asks you why, tell them it is a protest against feminist ideology. Once enough men start boycotting them, women will turn away from feminism.

Henry Makow has gotten too loopy for most Men's Rights activists to consider him as one of their own. But he remains one of the internet's most influential antifeminists. Here are some quotes from his classic in craziness How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media  (i.e. propaganda.) to control society. ... Nicholas Rockefeller told [producer Aaron Russo] that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. ....

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of  providers also destabilizes the family. 

Only satanists would trash motherhood. 

The fellows at the Manhood Academy have also gotten a lot of criticism from MRAs. It's not altogether clear why, since their ridiculously retrograde views of women are no more ridiculously retrograde than many of those I've quoted above. The key Manhood Academy text is a 135-page pdf called The Principles of Social Competence, which is full of stuff like this:

While women and children often lack the capacity to grasp the inner workings of authority, they still have an instinctual, positive response to it. Authority brings chaotic, aimless things, people, events and circumstances into a state of good order. ...  Masculinity is properly expressed in the form of authority.

You know what I said above about reading the originals? Don't bother in this case.

Speaking of women as children, who could forget this classic, from "ramzpaul" on The Spearhead: How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization, which posited:

Single mothers, rampant divorce, abortion and falling birth rates are part of the cancer that is destroying what is left of Western Civilization. But very few people (even conservatives) fail to realize that the inception of this cancer can be found in the passage of the 19th amendment.

I wrote about the piece, and reactions to it, here.

More Worst Of links to come! The Men's Rights movement produces fresh awfulness each and every day.

EDIT: Deansdale's Blog has weighed in on this Worst-of list and is surprisingly positive about the whole thing. Oh, not my post -- he hates my post, and me -- but the original MRA-n-pals posts. Elam's "Bash a Violent Bitch" post? "What’s the problem with this article? Nothing, really. ... Elam has some insightful observations about the nature of women in our contemporary cultures." Roissy's post about misogynist killer George Sodini? "What’s wrong with this article? Nothing."And RamZpaul's How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization? "There are valid arguments supporting his claim. It’s not PC, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong." 

He even sort-of defends good old Henry Makow and his bizarre conspiracy theoryies:

Actually this is not so crazy. You don’t believe it, that’s fine, but show me why this is soooo unacceptable. He states lots of things: some of them obvious, some of them researchable. But it’s not so radical.

 The only people he doesn't defend? The Manhood Academy guys. Apparently saying horrible, horrible shit about women is perfectly acceptable in Deansdale's vision of the MRM, but saying horrible, horrible shit about women while also calling other MRAs "manginas," as the Manhood Academy guys do, is totally BEYOND THE PALE!!!

QuoteOTD: Whatever terrible shit men do, it's all women's fault. Their sexy fault.

The quote of the day today is a long and rambling one, so buckle up. It's from a comment on The Spearhead, by a fellow named Snark, which was enthusiastically highlighted by the Schopenhauer-loving, Age-of-Consent-Law-hating theantifeminist on his creepy blog. The theme of the post? Whatever nasty, violent, bad shit men do is all the fault of hot young women, who control men through the power of their evil sexiness.

Before settling into his argument proper, Snark gets one little point out of the way: he's not talking about feminists, who are, he says, generally too old, or, if young, too "neurotic and/or ugly" to control men with the promise of sexy sex. No, Snark is talking about hot young women, who control men without having to resort to feminism. Oh, feminism is evil. But pretty girls are evil squared. So let's begin:

There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.

Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.

Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. ...

Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.

Hmm. So by this logic, then, we can assume that Hitler was just a hapless schmo driven to genocidal fury by thoughts of Eva Braun all tarted-up in a sexy dirndl. Heck, he probably would have spent his whole life painting pictures of butterflies had it not been for all those foxy frauleins. And just imagine how much worse World War II would have been if he'd actually had two balls, instead of just the one! Let's continue:

The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.

Poor men are stuck between their rock-hard dicks and a hard place:

The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.

Oh, and the way those ladies dress!

[T]oday we are subject to the new phenomena [of] ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. ...

The pink wurlitzer? Do you mean ... this? Never mind. Onward:

Our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.

How Women Rule the Universe

And what set all this in motion? The bikini? The Wonderbra? Nope:

[T]his was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote.

The vote! That sexy, sexy right to vote.

Not that this argument, such as it is, deserves a rebuttal, but if men are naturally nonviolent, and women are the cause of their violence, why do gay men get into fights?

Ain't That a Shaming Tactic

There's something inherently ridiculous about being lambasted for using "shaming tactics" -- by someone who has just called you a "mangina."

A few posts back, as you may recall, I took on an odd little rant on The Spearhead which seemed to suggest that Tea Party nutbag Christine O’Donnell's 14-year-old comments about the evils of masturbation offered proof of sorts that an evil "pussy cartel" was trying to keep American men from taking matters into their own hands, so to speak. The biggest threat to this diabolical female conspiracy, the author wrote, was "men realizing that their hand will do more for them than a woman will." 

The problem, of course, is that this is completely ridiculous. I myself have had sex on a number of occasions over the years -- I mean, with other people -- and I have to say that my hand, despite its obvious convenience and considerable dexterity, really cannot compete with, you know, an actual naked lady.

And so I suggested that any man who thought so little of women might have a hard time getting a date. This evidently sent the author of the piece, the man behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, into such a tailspin of shame that he wrote not one but two blog posts about me. In the first, after calling me a mangina, he insisted that he did in fact have a girlfriend. In a comment, I told him I felt sorry for her. And I do. What kind of woman would want to date a man who prefers the company of Susie Palmer and her five friends? So he wrote yet another post, this one spelling out in detail the evil forms of "shaming language" I had used.

Men's Rights Activists are obsessed with so-called "shaming language." Or at least they have been since a document called The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics started making its way around the manosphere; it's been linked to or posted on virtually every MRA blog or forum at least once.

The Catalogue is basically a list of allegedly unfair debating tactics used by those who think that MRAs are full of shit:

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate.  They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions.

The list spells out 16 different types of "shaming tactics," from the "Charge of Irascibility" (“You’re bitter!”), to the "Charge of Fanaticism" and the "Charge of Misogyny."

And it's true. People do charge MRAs with all of these things. And a lot of the time, they're guilty as charged. Some MRAs are bitter. Some MRAs are fanatics. Some MRAs are misogynists.

My most grievous crime? I had used the "Threat of Withheld Affection ... The Pink Whip," in which "the target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate." I'll have to plead guilty on that one, since that's exactly what I did.

In his second blog post, Pro-Male/Anti-Fem added two more counts to the charges against me: that I had accused him of "Preying On Weak/Damaged/Insecure Women" and "Non-Specific 'Shameful Behavior.'" I'll plead guilty on the first count, Your Honor, but innocent on the second: I was pretty specific about what I saw as shameful -- his idiotic ideas about the "pussy cartel" and the whole hand-better-than-woman nonsense.

The funny thing about the Catalogue is how deadly seriously so many MRAs take it, and how angry they get whenever one of their opponents, tired of fighting a battle of wits against half-wits, pulls one of the "shaming tactics" out of her or his bag in an effort to bring the fruitless discussion to a close.

The irony, of course (and please forgive me if I shout), is that MRAs USE SHAMING TACTICS THEMSELVES ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Just look at the comments on the post of mine that started this whole kerfuffle, posted, presumably, by MRAs who followed the link from Pro-Male/Anti-Fem's first post. The bravely anonymous first poster starts off the insult parade by saying "just because you've let them cut YOUR dick off doesn't mean we can't enjoy ours." (This is a classic example of what the Catalogue calls the "Charge of Invirility.") After a few more insult-laden comments, we come to this, from another brave Mr. Anonymous:

You don't understand. Little Ms. David here is just jealous because men will rather use a Fleshlight than give Little Ms. David's hungry poophole and mouthpussy the gift of their manly, throbbing love rockets. Awwwww. Men are such pigs. Men are so shallow they can't understand Little Ms. David needs a Real Man™.

But my favorite? This one:

a dickless wonder's blog, right here. You're such a girl, with the nonsensical shaming language.

Yep, the Charge of Invirility again. But even better, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to shout again: HE USES SHAMING LANGUAGE AGAINST ME IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE IN WHICH HE COMPLAINS ABOUT SHAMING LANGUAGE.

Sadly, our anonymous friend is hardly the first MRA to do exactly this. Take a look at this fine fellow over at (irony alert!) Antimisandry.com:

Whenever they try that crap I tell them, "Your hate speech doesn't work any more." ... Just side step it and call the cunt what she is, a hate monger. She has no answer for that.

Can anyone really be this un-self-aware?

In all my travels around the angry-manosphere -- Charge of Irascibility FTW! -- I have run across exactly one intelligent response to the Catalogue from an actual MRA: an essay on The Spearhead by the mysterious Zed, a sort of MRM elder statesman. Rather than simply lament the use of shaming language by the evil fems, Zed urges men to respond in kind, and not just with the standard anti-woman cliches.

The wasps will swoop in and start stinging – “loser, you hate women, you live in your mother’s basement, you must have a small penis” until they land one that hits a sore spot and triggers Chuck’s anger.

At this point he will lose his train of thought, and pop off with some terribly imaginative comeback like “bitch” or “whore” or “slut.” Contrary to all the nonsense about “slut shaming”, these terms don’t bother the attack wasps of Team Woman in the slightest. In fact, they are clear signals the wasps have hit their target, accomplished their objective, and reduced poor Chuck to barely articulate profanity.

The solution? MRA's need to "start honing our rhetoric of ridicule so we can sting our opponents as deeply as they are trying to sting us."

I second his emotion. "Dickless wonder?" "Mangina?" "Cunt?" You can do better than that. The "Little Ms. David" guy shows some promise, but he lacks finesse. Study the masters of insult: Oscar Wilde. Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Andrea Dworkin.

And quit whining about "shaming language" like a bunch of damn babies.

That's The Charge of Hypersensitivity, by the way.

First they came for the Fleshlights

Q: How many Men's Rights Activists does it take to screw a Fleshlight?

A: That's not funny!

So what emotion did you feel when Christine O’Donnell's bizarre anti-masturbation video first started popping up on cable news and the intertubes? (If you haven't seen it yet, pop over here and return when you're done.) Did you feel amused, annoyed, befuddled, perhaps concerned that someone so wacky could possibly be voted into office? Did it make you horny, baby?

For the men's rights blogger behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech blog, there was nothing funny about the video. "They're Afraid of Men Masturbating," he wrote in a piece also published on the The Spearhead, warning fellow men to beware the dark specter of the mysterious "they" -- he never quite specifies who this is -- trying to get between men and their hands.

Watch the youtube video and take note of the end.  Except for a token guy, it’s a group of women.  O’Donnell even says about her presumably future husband masturbating, “If he already knows what pleases him, and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?”  This quote exposes the undercurrent behind anti-masturbation attitudes.  It’s not so much anti-masturbation but anti men masturbating.  People against masturbation have a fear that men might actually have an alternative to women.  ...

When it comes to a woman who ... is planning on trying to control a man through providing a minimum of sex, then she has a lot to worry about when it comes to men realizing that their hand will do more for them than a woman will. 

And how will the evil "they" control men? Not by clamping their hapless partners' junk in a stylish new CB-6000 Male Chastity Device. Not by drawing litlte moustaches on all the pictures in their porn stashes. But sneakily, insidiously, through "shaming language." Religious conservatives like O'Donnell will open up their Bibles and start talking about Onan. Others will smirk and call men losers.

"When women use vibrators they are praised for taking control of their sexuality," he complains. "When a man uses a fleshlight he is attacked for being a loser who can’t get laid." The ultimate goal? "[T]o protect the pussy cartel from competition" in the form of fleshlights, virtual reality sex, and the comforts of their own hands and a bottle of lotion.

Yes, he did just use the phrase "pussy cartel." 

So, yeah. Here's the thing. The reason the sex-positive feminists and the Samantha Jones' of the world describe female masturbation as liberating is because, for many women, masturbation is still a source of deep, deep shame, so much so that many are too skittish or uneasy to even try it. While getting reliable info about sexuality is difficult, most studies of the subject indicate that men masturbate far more than women. (No duh.) One 2007 survey found that 95% of men had masturbated at least once in their lives, while only 71% of women had. More than half of men surveyed had masturbated in the week prior to taking the survey; only 18% of women had. Heck, I jacked it twice while writing this paragraph. I'm not afraid!

And here's the other thing. When people call you a loser for shacking up with your fleshlight instead of a warm, living, flesh-and-blood woman, they're not really making fun of the masturbating.

No, they're making fun of you for being so wholly objectionable to any sane woman that you're left alone with only your hands and your sex toys. They're making fun of you for being the sort of person who uses the phrase "pussy cartel." They're making fun of you for being such a crazy misogynist creepazoid that you've actually managed to convince yourself, at least for the amount of time it takes to write a blog post, that your "hand will do more for [you] than a woman will."

Is that shaming language? I suppose it it. That blog post was, well, pretty shameful.

EDIT: Some less-than-careful readers of this piece have somehow concluded that it is anti-masturbation, or at least anti-male-masturbation. It is not. Guys, masturbate all you want. In your bedroom, in the living room, in front of your pets, wearing a hat, wearing a dress. I don't care. Masturbation is healthy, normal, and oftentimes highly entertaining. I have been known to masturbate myself. My critique was not of masturbation but of guys who actually think that Christine O’Donnell's loopy remarks, which even she is backtracking on, mean that a "pussy cartel" is trying to stop men from touching their wieners.

EDIT 2: The target of this piece offers a response that suggests, among other things, that he really can't read very well. But he assures us that he actually is getting laid, so yay for him on that.