John Hambling’s Penis Gets Sexually Abused by Consent

Here’s another one of those AVFM pieces that is mindboggling in its stupidity. I’ll take the reader through this step by step. John Hambling wants to talk about his penis. The rhetoric begins:

I hope nobody minds too much if I spend the entirety of this article talking about my penis.

The thought of it repulses me but I totally understand why men like you write about your penis. You think it’s the center of the universe.

For example, I have been listening and reading for a number of years, as just about every single other voice within our shared (and fabricated) cultural narrative that tells me, and tells you, and tells anyone within hearing, in the most authoritative and condemning terms, all about my personal, private sexual parts.

The entitlement just reeks. I know men like to think women are constantly talking about men’s penises but honestly, we have better things to do. Usually women talk about the entire man, ya know, that pesky thing called a human identity that men like you don’t afford to women.

For some, all P.I.V. – “Penis in Vagina” – is rape. But, of course, never mind the rape; aren’t we all inured to that chorus of hatred by now? Nobody seems to remark at the reduction of the most intimate act of physical affection to mere mechanics.

It’s not uncommon to find MRA’s brain dead when it comes to understanding philosophical ideas about the act of intercourse within a cultural context. That’s waaaaay over all of your proverbial ‘heads.’ Hambling quotes Susan Brownmiller:

Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function.
It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

—Susan Brownmiller

I’m not going to tell MRA’s what this analysis means because none of them would understand it even if I did. An MRA in the comment section pretty much captured the idea Brownmiller was expressing. Here’s the comment that got uprated:

This is my penis. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My penis is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My penis, without me, is useless. Without my penis, I am useless. I must fire my penis true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will…
My penis and I know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit…
My penis is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my penis clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will…
Before God, I swear this creed. My penis and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America’s and there is no enemy, but peace!~scrufflecat (13 thumbs up at posting time)

Susan Brownmiller was absolutely right in her analysis about men thinking their penis is a weapon. Thanks MRA’s.

Hambling continues:

According to this, for a man, his genitals are not a physical connection to sexual identity, or spirituality as manifested in some religions. It is not even an integral part of himself as a physical being. No, in this narrative, a penis is an implement of pain and damage. It’s a weapon.

Yes John. That’s how countless men use it and conceptualize it and that’s how the MRA commenter conceptualized it: as a weapon of war. What do men use as a weapon of war? PIV RAPE. The fact is though John, feminists DON’T separate the penis from the man that has it. That’s something that MEN have done. Everyone knows about the ‘jokes’ men make about their dicks, as if it’s a separate entity. Don’t you ever wonder why women don’t do that with their sexual organs? I leave you to ponder that.

According to feminist orthodoxy, rape, rather than being a rarely-occurring violent crime, is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. All men, against all women, in a process of conscious and purposeful intimidation.

First off, rape isn’t rare. Second, she’s saying it’s a premeditated crime and yes women DO fear it because it really DOES happen anytime, anywhere, and there are no signals to look for. Get it now John? That’s why people say ‘Men can stop rape.’ It’s men doing the majority of the raping and it’s a CONSCIOUS decision to rape. Why do you think gang rapes occur John? What is it about that ritual among men? Getting the picture yet John?

Consent. Enthusiastic, ongoing, affirmative consent, and without it, the usual implied agreement by which sex is actually engaged by real people in real world is now reclassified as a violent crime–but only men are the criminals obviously.

You know, it’s so rape apologist of him to tell us that the whole world operates without consent. That’s how he’d like it to operate. Citation needed for ‘only men are criminals.’ If you meant to imply that the majority of rapists are men I would agree with you.

You: The feminists engaging in all this narrative-shaping and reality-bending declaration of the identities, the sexuality and the intentions of people who not only aren’t you, but of whom you clearly have no hint of understanding.

You do not have my consent.

Tell me why you used the word ‘identities?’ Are you saying that male identity depends on the ability to rape when they want? Seems very suspicious to me since NOBODY has declared that rape=male identity except you. We have every right to talk about rape and consent.

Hold on to your keyboard for this next bit:

You don’t have my consent to declare anything about my penis. You utterly lack my consent to hypothesize on my intentions, sexual or otherwise. You have not ever asked my permission to discuss, never-mind to declare by decree what my motive might be, what my sexuality says, or what the purpose of my penis is. It’s mine, its private, you are not invited to touch, to spy, to grope unskillfully at my most intimate sexual parts or my sexuality.

LOL. Ok John. WHO said anything about YOUR penis? Why are you writing about your penis? How does enthusiastic consent between two or more people have anything to do with your penis? If I wasn’t so feministy I would think you’re taking a serious subject and reframing it about your penis because you think it’s the center of the universe which only gives more credence to Brownmiller’s quote.

I can talk about your penis all I want to but I don’t really want to. I find everything about you, as a human being, disgusting. Now the last part I understand. If you didn’t give consent for someone touch your extremely small penis then nobody should be touching it. How can you be so stupid as to miss the point entirely and then babble about YOUR boundaries and then disrespect the boundaries of others?

My sexuality is not yours to use, or abuse for your own amusement, or in construction of your narrative. You, the feminist, however, seem utterly unconcerned that your own admonitions about consent apparently do not apply to your exercise of fiat power.

So your sexuality is your penis and feminists are abusing your penis? Bwahahahah!  The only one linking your sexuality=penis=rape is YOU.

Hold on folks:

But as forbearing and accommodating as I am, and so many other men evidently are, I have had entirely enough.

I am entirely sick and tired of the assault on my sexuality. If you are a feminist, I mean you are sexually assaulting me.

The feminist narrative on sex, on masculinity and on my penis is an assault. Your narrative, feminist, is sexual assault.

Right, so having consent means that your penis and your sexuality is assaulted? WTH? If this isn’t the most extreme example of an MRA turning something totally obvious into something totally unrecognizable then I’m Batgirl.

I am not playing word games. This is not a clever play of rhetoric. The present feminist narrative on sex, on male sexuality, and the feminist narrative on my penis is nothing short of ongoing sexual abuse.

That’s exactly what you’re doing: spewing rhetoric. Consent has nothing to do with male sexuality John, you idiot. Do you realize that you’re saying consent is harmful to my penis and therefore my male sexuality? Do you understand that what you’re saying is classic rape apologia? I didn’t think so.

As feminists, you have been for a very long time using my sex and sexuality. You have used my sex in cultivation of your frankly vile hate-narrative. But you do not have my consent.

Just. Wow. How very entitled. Nobody cares about your sexuality or your penis. I can talk about male rape culture till the cows come home because until men stop raping this will be a topic of conversation.

So in all this assault on the sexuality, and all this abuse of the sexual identities of men and boys by feminists, should I now explain, as to a classroom of mentally challenged children – the affection, loyalty, devotion of men, the natural love of almost all men towards women? Should I here, enrich the tyrants still controlling our public narrative?

lolwut? I suppose this is the ‘nice guy’ schpeel after he basically says consent bothers his penis.

John Hambling had a FightClub experience with straw feminism

Wouldn’t such a gift, bestowed onto a movement of sexual abusers, also be abused and used as another tool of human harm?

*facepalm*

Just as my sexuality, and men’s, is not on offer to ideologues in service of their cultivation of hate, neither is it free to use as entertainment, or indulgence, or as assumed service to be denied by a sexual gatekeeper.

Nobody is using your sexuality you goof. The last part was REALLY rapey. ‘Denied by a sexual gatekeeper?’

And you, the feminists, you do not have my consent, or that of any of the other men or boys you continue to sexually assault and abuse.

*claps* Brava! Nobody has to get your consent to talk about rape you entitled straight white dude. This was one of the best rapey rants by Hambling ever.

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “John Hambling’s Penis Gets Sexually Abused by Consent

  1. You don’t have my consent to declare anything about my penis.

    To paraphrase Paul Elam, your consent is not required for these comments: John Hembling, your penis is quite unimpressive. Please keep your penis at least 500 feet away from us at all times — that’s a restraining order from the world.

  2. too many errors and obvious bigotry, lack of intelligence and no insight, to bother with every one. It is hilarious that this author seems to claim great insight and understanding, but cannot read and understand the pretty straightforward.

    But here “Susan Brownmiller was absolutely right in her analysis about men thinking their penis is a weapon.” . I don’t think so, in fact, it is absurd to suggest it as true and really destroys whatever credibility I thought this woman might have had worth reading.

    A weapon is defined by what it is used for. How many men actually think of hurting others with their penis, actually using it and viewing it as a weapon. Outside rapists, maybe a few s&m heads. But no, men do not view their penis’ as a weapon!

    Just because the attitude feminists seem to hold as sex being a form of assault and oppression, doesn’t mean other people view it this way, most women don’t and most men don’t.

    The only group that extends definitions into the absurd, is the feminist group! They want specific verbal consent asked for by the man, and granted by the women!!! like in Victorian times!! except more absurd and sifted. Of course if that was the expectation in society, it would in fact have to be written and signed… the signature would have to be witnessed !!!!

    For this author, with this feminist “thinking” to go on about other people being ridiculous… well it is way beyond ridiculous.

    • But here “Susan Brownmiller was absolutely right in her analysis about men thinking their penis is a weapon.” . I don’t think so, in fact, it is absurd to suggest it as true and really destroys whatever credibility I thought this woman might have had worth reading.

      Wow. I don’t think we’ll take your word for it, since “because you say so” holds exactly zero weight.

      But no, men do not view their penis’ as a weapon!

      So where do the common phrases like, “I’m going to fuck you up!” or even the more basic insult “fuck you” come from? Hmmm? Do you mean to tell me that the penis not a weapon in these common insults/phrases?

      I didn’t think so.

      Just because the attitude feminists seem to hold as sex being a form of assault and oppression,

      Hmm, high and mighty words coming from the class of people who have not been, for the last 2000 years the primary targets of rape and sexual assault. Your lack of empathy seems to be off the scale, you should do something about that.

      doesn’t mean other people view it this way, most women don’t and most men don’t.

      And we should be eating shit too because billion of flies think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. Let’s keep the fallacious argumentum ad populum under our backwards turned hat shall we?

      That’d be great thanks.

      The only group that extends definitions into the absurd, is the feminist group!

      You know when you use words like “only” disproving what you say becomes so very easy. Pro-tip: Hyperbole is not your friend.

      They want specific verbal consent asked for by the man, and granted by the women!!!

      You mean being treated like human beings instead of always available fuck-toilets? Damn those women eh? Getting uppity and wanting human rights and stuff, the nerve.

      Your opposition to garnering consent between women and men makes you a pretty shitty human being.

      For this author, with this feminist “thinking” to go on about other people being ridiculous

      On the upside at least there is evidence of thinking on HMQ’s behalf. Reviewing your heroically self-important screed, I would have to say that you are indeed an expert on the category of ridiculous.

      • “But here “Susan Brownmiller was absolutely right in her analysis about men thinking their penis is a weapon.” . I don’t think so, in fact, it is absurd to suggest it as true and really destroys whatever credibility I thought this woman might have had worth reading.
        Wow. I don’t think we’ll take your word for it, since “because you say so” holds exactly zero weight.”

        Wow, my word hold zero weight, well as I am a man it, how men view their dicks is more something I can speak about than you. Also, while degrading my view, you yourself speak for “we” WOW you are speaking for unspecified people now!!! well should I take your word for it?

        Anyway, if one person’s view holds zero weight, why should you (plurals) view of the weight my views has make any difference to me? ….

        “But no, men do not view their penis’ as a weapon!
        So where do the common phrases like, “I’m going to fuck you up!” or even the more basic insult “fuck you” come from? Hmmm? Do you mean to tell me that the penis not a weapon in these common insults/phrases?”

        my god, you are such a moron. First, fuck means to have sex. It is used by women and men, your argument os so weak… it’s worse than “that’s why it’s called dope” as an anti drugs message. “I fucking love this” “fuck ye”… Abortionist, telling name, you don’t have the wit to even see how stupid your own point are.

        “Fuck” does not have a male meaning, it does not refer to a dick, women also use it in the same way “I’d like to fuck him” “we fucked” Also, it really doesn’t even usually end up being intended literally …. “I’m going to mess/fuck you up” . If this is how you back up men viewing their penis’ as weapons, not only are you warped, but … fucked up in the head.

        “The only group that extends definitions into the absurd, is the feminist group!
        You know when you use words like “only” disproving what you say becomes so very easy. Pro-tip: Hyperbole is not your friend.” very weak…. you do know now you have to prove that? if you want to be so literal under the guise of pretending to be clever that is. Or you could grow up, not take it so literally and realize feminists constantly try to extend definitions, when not trying to ban words!!!

        “They want specific verbal consent asked for by the man, and granted by the women!!!
        You mean being treated like human beings instead of always available fuck-toilets? Damn those women eh? Getting uppity and wanting human rights and stuff, the nerve.

        Your opposition to garnering consent between women and men makes you a pretty shitty human being.”

        You go way to far here, how dare you warp what I am saying into opposing consent! What I said was it was ridiculous to have to have a clear question and answer to sexual activity… normal human being have been having sex without this since the dawn of man… and you call me ridiculous!!!

        People who have sex and it is completely obvious the person they are with wants it, but don’t specifically ask as they go along, is not treating them like a fuck toilet. So everyone who has had sex without asking for specific consent for each bit, is treating others like a “fuck toilet” … nice, you have insulted almost all people over 21 there.

        The fact you gendered it really damn you…. so you think consent should only be required by males having sex with women? Also if verbal consent was brought in as a law, you would have to get it in writing and witnesses, or recorded with a time stamp!!! otherwise you would be completely at the mercy of a potentially psychotic woman in a sexist utopia feminists dream off!

        You contradict yourself back to back here, double standards to the last. But your saying a person who thinks people can have consenting sex without a formal question and answer session, that is verifiable later… opposes consensual sex!!!! you are so far beyond stupid, it’s scary to think there are probably people who agree with you.

        • Ah, I see the wall-text MRA trolls have come to the yard.

          “so you think consent should only be required by males having sex with women?”

          Show me where she said that.

          “Abortionist, telling name,”

          Bwahahahaha. Typical MRA not paying attention and spewing nonsense.

          • Ah, I see the wall-text MRA trolls have come to the yard.

            “so you think consent should only be required by males having sex with women?”… where did I say I was an MRA? only a feminist can accuse and be guilty of the very thing they are accusing another in the same breath!

            But as my response was to the abortionist? why do you think I owe you an explanation of why I said something to you, that I didn’t? Ah, I see, you are the abortionist! Idiot

            “Bwahahahaha. Typical MRA not paying attention and spewing nonsense.” now this is priceless, you pick out a tiny part of my comment, an aside, ignore that I did go into detail… pay attention to two areas, I pay attention to multiple, again you accuse me of doing exactly what you are in the process of doing while making the accusation. “Ah, I see the wall-text MRA trolls have come to the yard.” … immediate generalization to dismiss and ignore, then an example of you dismissing and ignoring while accusing me of doing that!!!

            Are you aware of this when you do it? It actually has nothing to do with gender… just logic and making a point! The only point you make is about yourself, stupidity, lack of self awareness and a massive, blatant double standard!!!!

          • @HMQ

            Daniel is valiantly bringing veryimportant male wis-duh to this comment section, facts are declared poopy by a mere wave of his hand. It is magical!

            I’m shocked you would castigate our BMW on his enbiggening quest to enlighten us. 🙂

          • @HMQ

            *sees squishy residue left from banhammer* – Awwww, chew-toy all gone!

            Hey it was fun being your ‘sockpuppet’ in your obvious quest to overthrow mankind.

            Thanks for hosting 🙂

          • Glad to help in chew toys. They do arrive all sparkly and ready to play with. Oh, maybe I should’ve waited a few hours to comment so paranoid chewy toy would stop his projections? Nah.

          • @HMQ

            MRA trolling…It’s like opening a dented tin of beans, high expectations at the first soft sigh of the opener piercing the lid, and then disappointment when nothing but foul gas just keeps coming out.

            Nothing to do but get the next tin out of cupboard and hope for the best. 🙂

        • @DM

          Wow, my word hold zero weight…

          Indeed, your “word” does hold zero weight, because you made an unsupported assertion.

          Anyway, if one person’s view holds zero weight, why should you (plurals) view of the weight my views has make any difference to me? ….

          My god, the intelligence and reasoning – so logic, so coherent – go on, you wily manosphere agent provocateur.

          First, fuck means to have sex.

          What? Get out of town.

          “Fuck” does not have a male meaning, it does not refer to a dick, women also use it in the same way “I’d like to fuck him” “we fucked” Also, it really doesn’t even usually end up being intended literally …. “I’m going to mess/fuck you up” . If this is how you back up men viewing their penis’ as weapons,

          Wait…so fuck means to have sex…and in heteronormative culture that usually means PIV – But when telling someone to “get fucked” it instantaneously loses all previous connotations and simply means get lost.

          It would be nice if language worked like that but it doesn’t. Connotations stick with words, and thus unwanted intercourse/punishment intercourse is associated with the term “fuck you” unless of course. you think that the word “fuck” does not actually mean to have sex (which you stated earlier that it does indeed mean to have sex).

          Arguing isn’t really your strong suit is it? Half a cookie for trying though, bro.

          Hyperbole is not your friend.” very weak…. you do know now you have to prove that?

          On the internet, they have these things called hyperlinks. If you closely examine my comment, you will note that there happens to be a link to a post that has six examples of a group other than feminists that ‘extend the meanings of definitions’. So, welcome to Wrongville your campaign for mayor is gaining momentum.

          You go way to far here, how dare you warp what I am saying into opposing consent! What I said was it was ridiculous to have to have a clear question and answer to sexual activity… normal human being have been having sex without this since the dawn of man… and you call me ridiculous!!!

          Daaamn Skippy! You are doing my work for me. You just said it *again* – “consent is ridiculous.”

          Consent is what happens between two human beings. If you haven’t noticed (and I’m pretty sure you haven’t), women haven’t had full human being status for very long and let me assure you being regarded as another’s property isn’t that much fun.

          You’re right. For most of history the consent of the woman was unnecessary because she was regarded as less than human.

          Yah, so the ‘normal’ was a shit deal for women and though the normal kinda works if you happen have male bits, that fact does not negate the shit deal that women have received and continue to receive.

          and you call me ridiculous!!!

          Muffin, you are much more than ridiculous, let me assure you of that.

          People who have sex and it is completely obvious the person they are with wants it, but don’t specifically ask as they go along, is not treating them like a fuck toilet.

          So taking the 5 second to ask for consent is out of the picture, because using your words is too much trouble for you, even though though taking that 5 seconds you would be affirming a woman’s consent and her status as a human being. Although on further reflection using words does seem a bit of challenge for you.

          Well damn bro, I think my assessment of you as a not very nice person is being realized – as evinced by your reluctance to want to treat women as if they were people.

          So everyone who has had sex without asking for specific consent for each bit, is treating others like a “fuck toilet” … nice, you have insulted almost all people over 21 there.

          It’s funny how requesting normal descent human behaviour is making you so frothing mad. It’s almost like you feel put upon by me for asking you to act like a decent human being. Oh, the plight of the oppressed dude, it must be rough.

          so you think consent should only be required by males having sex with women?

          Err no…this is what I said – “Your opposition to garnering consent between women and men makes you a pretty shitty human being.”

          Looks like *you* gendered the notion. Not I. Consent, of course, has to work both ways, you know between two human beings that share equal status.

          otherwise you would be completely at the mercy of a potentially psychotic woman in a sexist utopia feminists dream off!

          Is a “dream-off” like a bake-off? Can we sell the yummy dream cakes to raise money for charity? You amuse me, tell me more about all those psychotic women out there; are they out to get men in general or just you? Shall I enlighten you about people with real personality disorders, the serial killers who are <a href=almost always male and almost always white. I do take such pleasure bursting your manly bubble of factual certitude – Congratulations you *are* the mayor of Wrongville.

          you contradict yourself back to back here, double standards to the last. But your saying a person who thinks people can have consenting sex without a formal question and answer session, that is verifiable later… opposes consensual sex!!!!

          I’m not really sure what to make of this nicely tossed word-salad but I think we can safely boil it down into you think that getting consent from your sexual partner not a requirement thus confirming that you really are a terrible human being.

          Thanks for that, I wasn’t 100% sure until now.

          it’s scary to think there are probably people who agree with you.

          Women with full human being status and agency!!1111! Oooooooo….Boooooo……*scary scary haunting noises*

          The horror….the…horror…

          Your move Brave Manosphere Warrior Whinger.

          • lol, so weak, spelling errors? that is weak… also, if someone makes an assertion without back up, no back up is required to take it down.. what is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Again, the double standard, blind generalisations, and idiotic hypocrisy… you all sound the same! every time, demand things you don’t provide, contradict yourselves in one comment!

        • Wow, my word hold zero weight, well as I am a man it, how men view their dicks is more something I can speak about than you.

          Well then allow ME to mansplain this to you: As a man I’ll say that rape is used as a weapon in war. It’s committed with foreign objects and, yes, male genitalia. Threats of sexual violence (“I’ll fuck you up!”) as well as rape threats are a testament to the fact that, just as I can victimize someone with my fists, I can also do so with my genitals. Seems to make good common sense but no one ever claimed MRAs had that.

          • OK, you have some valid point there, but they don’t counter me saying men do not view their dicks as weapons! I have no intention to use it as a weapon, therefore it is not a weapon.

            By your explanation, if something can be used as a weapon it is viewed as a weapon… which is ridiculous. Your comment backs up my point really.

            “I’ll fuck you up” is not a threat of sexual violence, it is a threat of doing harm, in fact, it does not sound at all like a threat of sexual violence as it doesn’t mention sex!

            As for common sense, you call someone who has not said they are an MRA and MRA. So you are using this label to diminish my commit and then, after you pathetic and illogical comment, talk about this group you say I am in having no common sense!

            “As a man I’ll say that rape is used as a weapon in war” I never said it was not! So, straw man.

            “Threats of sexual violence (“I’ll fuck you up!”)” THis is not a threat of sexual violence, if you think it is, well get help.

            “just as I can victimize someone with my fists, I can also do so with my genitals” operative word “can” just because something can be used as a weapon does not mean it is viewed as one. A drill can be used as a weapon, but it is mostly viewed as a tool!

          • Not every man has to view their penis as a weapon for it to be used as a weapon. It’s irrelevant what you think you use it for. In fact, take another look at Susan Brownmiller’s quote:

            Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon…

            The discovery that it COULD serve as a weapon. So all your ranting about tools is irrelevant to the point at hand.

            “As a man I’ll say that rape is used as a weapon in war” I never said it was not! So, straw man.

            Bonus points for not knowing what a strawman argument is. I wasn’t claiming you felt that way. I was countering your ignorant point that being a man makes you qualified to talk down to women about the subject of rape. And I also wanted to solidify the point that a penis has, in fact, been used as a weapon. (As an aside, gun enthusiasts like to refer to guns as mere tools as well.)

            Threats of sexual violence (“I’ll fuck you up!”)” THis is not a threat of sexual violence, if you think it is, well get help.

            Since fuck refers to sex you can see how the inference can be made. And that statement can be used, and is used, to intimate sexual assault. And just because you say “seek help” doesn’t mean you have a cogent argument.

            As for common sense, you call someone who has not said they are an MRA and MRA. So you are using this label to diminish my commit and then, after you pathetic and illogical comment, talk about this group you say I am in having no common sense!

            Is proper grammar so hard? I mean I know it’s the ‘Net and all, but jeez. Look, if you use standard MRA talking points I’m forced to say, “If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.”

        • Wait, are you having trouble reading “Arbourist”? Who’s talking about abortion? And it’s pretty obvious that there are several people disagreeing with you, not one person in several different locations with several different IP addresses, genius.

          • sorry, ye abourist, how does several people disagreeing invalidate me saying I think two of them are in fact one? when one refers to something I said as related to the other, as if it related to, was directed them?

            I don’t check people IP addresses, that is a bit excessive. I stay within the discussion… anyway, you can use TOR or similar to create different IP’s… genius!

          • They’ve both commented on my blog. I know they’re two different people from different areas. Unless you have proof that they are one and the same, you’re gonna sound like a nut. Or maybe it’s all an elaborate ruse and one person has made two entirely separate blogs and pretend they live in different areas with different IP addresses as part as an evil man-hating plot to confuse you.

  3. p.s. to suggest a man talking about his penis reeks of entitlement, when feminists are obsessed with talking about vaginas… even a play about them, with a female on female rape, the vagina monologues, “my vagina has a voice” … feminism is a weird combination of disorders, the lying, the victimhood, the projection of victimhood onto others… like munchausen and munchausen by proxy and sociopathy!

    • And not to stick up completely for the Vagina Monologues, but in “The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could” (yeah I hate the title too) the narrator was 16-years-old, which is the age of consent in about 30 states.

      • I mentioned the V monologues as an example of women talking about their vaginas a lot, so much they made a play about it. 16, may be the law, but is something ok the day after a birthday? Anyway, wasn’t it a coercive situation?

        Re “could” be used as a weapon, the fact something could be used as a weapon does not mean it is thought of as a weapon. Even if it was considered a weapon at a limited point of time would not make it true to say it “is” viewed as a weapon.

        • I know why you brought it up, but I think the whole purpose of the Vagina Monologues was to draw attention to women’s issues and women’s sexual pleasure, things which weren’t talked about as much when it was originally written. Eve Ensler quoted a handful of women about orgasms, etc. and their statements are part of the V-Monologues. As for that particular scene, it was the only one that kind of made me uncomfortable because yes, there was alcohol involved, although it never said she was drunk per my recollection. But I think the whole notion of consent has been evolving steadily since that performance first came out. They just recently added a trans section the V-Monologues when I saw it two months ago.

          • the reason it and the general vagina discussion don’t really matter for my point, it being about women’s genitals and sexual pleasure being the main one and a big one, make it silly to make out men always go on about their dicks! The same stands for sexuality. Male sexuality is seen as dirty and to be feared, women’s as almost divine! in touch with the earth etc., beautiful and never to be criticised.

            The idea of consent having to be spelled out is fucking obscene… people should have better communication skills and be able to tell if someone want to do what they are about tp potentially do. It also, yet again makes rape out as a crime of lust or passion, when it is one of violence. Do people really think rapists rape by accident or misunderstanding?

            If you don’t want to have sex, say that! If you are old enough to have sex you shoudl be old enought to say no! also how would it be informed… technically if a man and woman got home had sex, then she said it was rape… but it was not, where would that leave the man? not saying yes after being asked would become rape!!!! Apart from the sexism and misandry, it makes women again look like child minded people who need everyone to help them through life!

          • Male sexuality is seen as dirty and to be feared, women’s as almost divine! in touch with the earth etc., beautiful and never to be criticised.

            Who says male sexuality is always dirty and to be feared? It’s just ubiquitous, that’s all. We see men’s sexual interests catered to all the time, that’s why the Vagina Monologues were written.

            The idea of consent having to be spelled out is fucking obscene… people should have better communication skills and be able to tell if someone want to do what they are about tp potentially do.

            Consent does need to be effective consent. It isn’t good enough to be *silent*. You want people with better communication skills? Pretty sure that would help. Consent isn’t obscene, rape and sexual assault are.

            It also, yet again makes rape out as a crime of lust or passion, when it is one of violence. Do people really think rapists rape by accident or misunderstanding?

            Okay, now I *know* you’ve never been to college. Because college students, all the time, get into these scenarios where they are unsure about the nature of consent (e.g., when alcohol is involved or if they have had previous sexual contact with a person). Many victims of sexual assault, molestation and rape don’t even realize they’ve been victimized because they don’t know what the definition is. When many people think about rape they automatically picture an assailant violently raping someone in the dead of night and not an acquaintance at a party or at their house. That’s why this sort of thing is necessary.

            If you don’t want to have sex, say that!

            I agree! So they should say that. And they should have the freedom to say when sexual acts have gone too far. Or is that “obscene” as well?

            technically if a man and woman got home had sex, then she said it was rape… but it was not, where would that leave the man?

            It leaves him in the hands of the justice system like any other reported crime. This is the same line of argumentation that was used to justify exemptions for marital rape and domestic abuse, because it happens in the home between a husband and wife and therefore we should look the other way because wives are thought to have automatically consented in the marriage vows. It’s an archaic line of reasoning. If it isn’t rape then the evidence can establish it.

            not saying yes after being asked would become rape!!!!

            Pretty sure the definition of rape is non-consensual sex, dude.

            Apart from the sexism and misandry, it makes women again look like child minded people who need everyone to help them through life!

            Two things:

            1. Misandry? wut?

            2. Consent matters for everyone, not just women. This isn’t an issue that only applies to women, it goes for men too. Because, well, men can be raped ya know.

          • Let me get this straight. An article on AVFM is solely about a penis being abused as a METAPHOR, as IF a PENIS has an independent status (which is what Brownmillers philosophy of seeing a penis as an ‘other’). I made the point that men talk about their dicks as an OTHER as if it’s not part of them. ie ‘my Johnson, my ‘tool’, ‘gun’ naming it, etc. This is true. MEN DO THAT.

            Oh and if you think consent is too much to ask then you’re basically saying rape is totally ok.

            The only child here is you. The fact you can’t afford someone basic decency and respect of consent means you’re the child here.

            Oh and you’re banned.

        • And back to the weapon thing. It is viewed as a weapon not by every man, but most men know that it *can* be used as such. Or any man who knows what rape is should know. You know what I mean? So, for example, I would never rape anyone, but I know that I am physically capable of doing so. My genitalia *could* be used as a weapon, even though I do not view it as one.

  4. Listening to the AVFMer above foaming through his multiple comments, I remember a basic rule of effective writing…avoid exclamation points.

    It’s “Hembling”, by the way.

    My take: Hembling seems to be decompensating in the psych sense. He has photoshopped injuries onto his face in an article about his genitalia, then taken a selfie of himself, with an expression like a masochist after good masochist sex. A shrink could have a ball (haha) with that. Maybe he actually wanted to put up a selfie of his penis, likewise photoshopped with injuries, but didn’t quite dare (yet) to go that far. He’s deep in the land of Freud here. He seems to think his mostly unintelligible post somehow subverts a straw feminist narrative. What a waste of time. It’s pitiful watching his decline.

  5. Okay so I messed up on the quote brackets on that last comment but the point still stands. Wish I had an edit function.

    • @Bradandrosesblogger

      Chew toy is still a chew-toy whether his quotes illustrating his(DM’s) risible argumentation are properly formatted of not. 🙂 Just sayn’.

      @DM

      lol, so weak, spelling errors? that is weak… also, if someone makes an assertion without back up, no back up is required to take it down.. what is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Again, the double standard, blind generalisations, and idiotic hypocrisy… you all sound the same! every time, demand things you don’t provide, contradict yourselves in one comment!

      Wow, skeptical dudes must have a handbook perhaps entitled: Hyperskepticism – Only for Topics that Threaten my Dominant Position in Society. You’ve studied it well Padafail.

      If you’ve bothered, with your keen skeptical eye, I’ve been referencing assertions and yet from square one Brave Manosphere Warrior you’ve only graced us with your very important opinion.

      So, BMW, if you want to actually be skeptical as opposed to the wacky-fun house-clown version that you’ve brought so far (amusing as it is), start with the Brownmiller quote.

      1. Find the whole quote first.
      2. Read the surrounding body of the text so you can make sure you’re getting it in context.
      3. Agree or disagree with what Brownmiller is actually saying
      4. Structure a coherent argument that shows us why Brownmiller is wrong and why your answer is better.

      5. Sound hard? Welcome to skepticism 101 Muffin.

      • right, so make an invalid responses then think you should be able to dictate what is to be discussed, using bullet points!!!!… now that is an extreme sense of entitlement!

        Look, you are a feminist,and have proven yourself to be impervious and resentful of other views.. feminists, like you, can not accept anything that doesn’t fit with your pre prescribed answer, men bad women good.

        Now you are trying to be patronizing, you think sex without direct verbal consent is rape! you are a brainwashed sheep, your ability to assess or make a point is 0! hence focus on the personal, efforts to sound clever, failed efforts.

        The house mouse completely ignores context… but you have no issue there. says it all really. night night princess

        • @DW

          right, so make an invalid responses then think you should be able to dictate what is to be discussed, using bullet points!!!!… now that is an extreme sense of entitlement!

          Actually, Daniel, I was giving you an opportunity to make a real argument, as opposed to the rest of the steaming heap you’ve left here so far. Heck, I even mapped out what you needed to do to not sound like a wanker.

          I always have a faint hope that I might meet a thoughtful MRA… The Long March continues..

          Look, you are a feminist,and have proven yourself to be impervious and resentful of other views.

          You haven’t said anything even remotely persuasive. You must find a lot of people “impervious” to your views. Derisive and dismissive of your views I can see, hell even throw in impetuous,but resentful? How can I resent someone demonstrating, almost by the numbers how not to argue?

          feminists, like you, can not accept anything that doesn’t fit with your pre prescribed answer, men bad women good.

          I’m not really feeling that assertion, you may have to prove it outside the context of your hurt fee-fees.

          Now you are trying to be patronizing,

          Oh, it is very obvious Muffin, I am being patronizing. Ever since you started with your opinion and not backed it up, it has been the patronizing express, it runs right to your doorstep Mr.Mayor.

          you think sex without direct verbal consent is rape!

          Guilty as charged. Amazing how much you rail against women being treated as if they were autonomous rights bearing members of society. I think the misogyny train is planning a stop near your house as well.

          you are a brainwashed sheep, your ability to assess or make a point is 0!

          Says the dude who hasn’t made a point(other than demonstrating ignorance on a legendary level)yet. Fascinating.

          hence focus on the personal, efforts to sound clever, failed efforts.

          You know, it is even more important to proof your posts when you’re all frothy and agitated, because coherence tends to go out the window once your amygdala has been activated; clearly yours has been set to 11 for quite awhile.

          says it all really. night night princess

          Please stick to the flounce BMW. 🙂

  6. “Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon” the fact this says discovery, means it was not an innate thing… so, is he saying every man is told this information on becoming a man? that this “knowledge” is passed on to all men regardless of separation from the men who discovered this? Is mand one group that discover everything in unison?

    • Pretty sure if you’re a man and know what rape is then you understand it. Unless you’re extraordinarily dimwitted.

      • you understand what rape is and that it does not always involve a penis, you also understand the difference between seeing something used as a weapon and you personally seeing it as a weapon. it you never intend to use your penis as a weapon or to threaten that use it is not one.

        Men do not view their dcks as weapons, if you want to counter that, put forward an argument that says men view their dicks as weapons.

        For example, I know a newspaper can be used as a weapon, I don’t see it as one though… I see it as a paper, maybe a mind weapon, but not in the way it is put here.

        • Men do not view their dcks as weapons, if you want to counter that, put forward an argument that says men view their dicks as weapons.

          This is like arguing against a brick wall. Either you’re old enough or smart enough to understand the simple point I made or you’re not. Yes, rape does not necessarily involve a penis, but most often it does. So common sense dictates that people know what they can use to rape people. I don’t know what is difficult to understand about this.

          • well if you view this as arguing with a brick wall, when I am directly responding to your points, I understand, it is easier to degrade the person rather than accept you are not making your point well or are wrong.

            An artist view his brush as a tool to create art, but it can be viewed by another as a weapon. The intent is the issue. To say men view their dicks as weapons is to say the intent is in all men. That’s my point, it is not true.

            But, what the heel does this mean “Either you’re old enough or smart enough to understand the simple point I made or you’re not. ” ? if someone agrees with you they are mature and/or smart? please!

          • To say men view their dicks as weapons is to say the intent is in all men. That’s my point, it is not true.

            Actually the original quote says that there is knowledge that it *could* serve as a weapon. You keep changing it to “all men DO view their genitalia as weapons.” You’re changing the points and arguing against them. That’s the problem, and THAT’S what a strawman is.

            if someone agrees with you they are mature and/or smart? please!

            Nope. But if you were you’d be able to understand simple language.

  7. OK, you are a moron bread… “Susan Brownmiller was absolutely right in her analysis about men thinking their penis is a weapon. ” The author misrepresented the sentiment of the quote and that was what I was referring to. But I doubt you will have the spine or honesty to admit your error or critisize the person guilty of what you accuse me of doing.

    So this takes care of your second point. You prove you don’t even read and understand a response is different to an initiating comment.

    I don’t have any real issue with the original quotation, it is biased, but .. unlike you, I would need to see the context to pass judgement.

    You have a ridiculous blind spot that seems to allow you say the absurd and self contradictory without knowing you are. You see what you want to see, then respond to that rather than what actually was said.

    • OK, you are a moron bread…

      Er…scathing?

      The author misrepresented the sentiment of the quote and that was what I was referring to. But I doubt you will have the spine or honesty to admit your error or critisize the person guilty of what you accuse me of doing.

      House Mouse Queen can speak for herself. But I don’t see what she said as a “misrepresentation” nonetheless. If you’re upset that she didn’t explicitly put “could” in her sentence then you’re getting hung up on the absolute thinnest of linguistic technicalities. Since she already said Susan Brownmiller’s statement was correct, it should be plain as day that she echoed the exact same sentiment as Brownmiller. If you have any other concerns about what she wrote, ask her. I can’t answer for her since I can’t read minds, and in spite of what you might believe, I am also not her under a different user name. (Since you have trouble comprehending this point will specify that that was a joke because of the House Mouse/Arbourist thing.)

      I don’t have any real issue with the original quotation, it is biased, but .. unlike you, I would need to see the context to pass judgement.

      …then read the book Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. I’m not passing judgment on a topic of which I am unfamiliar. In fact, she was quoted in one of my legal texts.

      You have a ridiculous blind spot that seems to allow you say the absurd and self contradictory without knowing you are. You see what you want to see, then respond to that rather than what actually was said.

      Considering how much you’ve misconstrued here that’s saying something.

    • “I don’t have any real issue with the original quotation, it is biased, but .. unlike you, I would need to see the context to pass judgement. ”

      Then go read the book and start searching the internet. I’m not going to explain the entire thing to you since you have an internet connection and aren’t afraid to post walls of crap on my blog.

      Now get going.

  8. Wow, HMQ, not only does this creepy dude have a head that looks like a big, white penis with a face on it, he’s totally outdone his own grossness this time. Yuck-O!

    I bet you went through a case of Pepto-bismol while creating this blogpost! LOL!

Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s