PORN IS WAR ON WOMEN
If feminists were slightly less dishonest
See? A catchy inflammatory title like the one used for this article is a very effective strategy used by feminists like Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Jessica Valenti or many others. See, feminists consistently use this strategy not because they are authentic victims, they do it for profit, for page views, for personal gain.
Why? Because rhetoric from demagogues requires the infusion of strong, preemptive emotional noise in the title (hence the whimsy title for this article and the kind lady above) In many ways, feminists and the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) share many strategies in common besides both being religions.
Furthermore, feminist demagogues persistently and obsessively claim there is an ongoing “war on women” which, plainly speaking means
“men are the enemy”
Which, very fittingly, mimics the WBC when they say
“God is your enemy”
But again, saying there is a “war on women”? Wew…Those feminists really knocked it out of the park with that one. The problem with that exacerbated rhetoric of “war on women” is that, like all lies, it breaks down when we compare it with objective reality. Let’s compare actual historical acts of war with the alleged “war on women” used by feminist demagogues. In the real history of the world, these are common almost universal actions against the enemy:
1. Killing the enemy
2. Enslaving the enemy
3. Keeping the enemy as prisoners of war
Therefore an actual “war on women” would look like this
1. Killing women
2. Raping women
3. Keeping women as prisoners of war
See? The problem with extraordinary claims like “war on women” is that they need to be presented with extraordinary evidence but, feminists do not have any.
But, just for the sake of argument, let’s imagine this was an actual debate with someone like the stereotypical feminist “Big Red”. What would be the first thing she would say when shown the comparison above of what an actual war on women would look like? Perhaps the first thing she would say would be something along these lines,
“See? Men have always killed and raped women throughout history & they also whipped them in dungeons. This is patriarchy!!! It is a war against wym..!”
Let’s just use our patriarchal powers to silence the yelling red radcunt above from continuing her tirade because it would far from historical facts and quite honestly, she gives the impression of spitting too much while speaking.
Let me explain, history shows women were not the target of war, men were. In an ideal world, high profile feminists would recognize that men are the primary victims of their own death but instead, they publicly say jewels like this,
No. It is not a meme, nor a mediocre attempt at satire, it is an actual authentic quote completely within the context of feminism and a DV conference. If even high profile feminists have these lapses in their basic humanity and common sense, very little can be expected from the average feminist. The above quote is, just like feminists, disconnected from reality and misanthropic at best.
Objective reality is far from their dogmatic delusional feminist view of reality. Throughout history, “killing women” was never a priority, the main goal was killing the ones wielding the weapons;
If we compare actual war with the purported “war on women” the comparison just breaks down. War does not feature “filming the enemy for sexual entertainment” War does not give anybody “safe practices” or “safe words” to stop the battle.
No. War is about killing the enemy and the enemy has always overwhelmingly consisted of male armies. Save the exceptions like the Mongols the vast majority of male armies had nearly zero interest in killing the women and the children, quite the opposite, they were enslaved or let go.
Was ever filming sexual intercourse a war strategy?
Is porn an act of war at all?
How does porn rank then?
Is porn a number 4? 7?
If so, what kind of porn qualifies as an act of war?
None. That is why feminists are laughable.
However, the wikipedia page of feminist views on porn makes as much sense as an assembly of Muslims trying to agree on how to follow a pork only cookbook.
Why do feminists like Anita Sarkeesian dislike sexuality and porn so much?
Why do they have the bad habit of comparing it to assault or war?
Well, here is the unkind honest truth:
Feminists reject porn because it reminds them of their own past sexual abuse.
As delusional as it sounds, feminists vicariously re-live their own harm through someone else’s pleasure i.e. Porn. It makes as much sense as an anorexic that hates food more and more every time she sees a junk food ad, but what the anorexic does not say is that she was once force-fed against her will. Or, in a more literal way, it makes as much sense as anti-porn feminist that hates sex more and more every time she sees a porn film, but what the anti-porn feminist does not say is that she was once penetrated against her will. It would, therefore stand to reason that Anita Sarkeesian’s rejection of male sexuality stems from her own personal sexual abuse and how she remembers it regularly. She may even be aware she cannot impose her trauma upon others but, like most sociopaths, she may also believe she provides a “service to society” thus anything goes for the sake of “girls like her”. Notice how the ego of a feminist always gets in.
Feminists are aware of this dysfunction but are too narcissistic to address their unhealthy daily excessive retrieval habits, how they remember their own rape on a daily basis and how porn causes them to keep remembering their own rape (despite the fact it would make more sense for them to avoid it, instead of “stumbling upon” it so often online, you got to wonder how they manage to “find” the “sickest” porn on their own). This excessive retrieval leads them to narcissistically and falsely conclude that, just because sexual intercourse on the screen is personally hurtful to them, it should be banned for everybody else, or as they may put it if they were honest
Ban ALL PORN because my broken sexuality dictates reality FOR EVERYONE!!!.
No. It just does not make sense for sexually broken individuals to be allowed to dictate someone else’s sexuality, they live in a delusion where they truly believe that their past sexual abuse defines sexual reality for everyone thus, they successfully exercise a form of sexual solipcism where one personal event of a crime falsely defines rules for society as a whole inside their sexually solipcistic heads. This is a broken process which (continues untreated for years and years) is a painfully narcissistic contradiction but instead of acknowledging they have a serious psychological problem, they chose to let their untreated PTSD fossilize and try to enforce the limitations of their mental disorders upon society. The result? Sexually broken feminists like Anita Sarkeesian trying to regulate the sexuality of male gamers in the western world. Sounds familiar? Let me rephrase it,
Ban ALL SEXY VIDEO GAMES because my broken sexuality dictates reality FOR EVERYONE!!!.
Imagine a victim of a hit and run who now wants all drivers cars and highways banned because they are all part of a “war on pedestrians”
It makes no sense. Blaming others for your own personal trauma does not work. Saying is “not their fault” doesn not help either, because it is a lie feminists tell themselves too often, they say “it is not my fault” not only to the crime that happened to them but to each and every one of their actions. They see the world through their trauma, a distorted feeling-only broken world where their everyday interest is making a drama out of their lives, to stay as far as possible from objective reality and, when they blame other people for their problems, feminists falsely believe they have the higher moral ground. They live in a misery of their own daily making and they actively rationalize convolutes excuses to be royal, unbearable, radcunts.
Do feminists even realize they are as irrational and impulsive as SalafiMuslims? They don’t. They are a radcunt version of the Westboro Baptist Church or Salafi Muslims, take your pick.
Oh, and they also hold anti porn signs at rallies that nearly say
“Women hate men…erm…porn!”
Just like the Westboro Baptist Church, you only have to swap the word “I” and use another word like “God” or a group such as “women” to validate a personal statement and make it look as if it applied to a collective, it has much more punch to say,
“Women are tired of porn objectification”
than just saying,
“I am tired of porn”
They justify their narcissism by using a collective and just get away with it. It is all about manipulation of the language, just like avoiding to call a male they dislike “rapist” and instead call them “rape apologist” which carries nearly the same punch minus the legal repercussions. See? They are cunning radcunts after all.
FEMINISTS HAVE MYSTERIOUS WAYS
As we saw on part one of these series, feminists like Anita Sarkeesian have a rather dysfunctional relationship with porn because of their past sexual abuse. Problem is, feminists are a toxic pandora box of contradictions because somehow they managed to jump from website to website to only to land in the darkest crevices of the internet to watch the most fucked up porn and when they find the sickest, hardest core rape fantasy or an actual rape-snuff video, they lose their menses, stand up and yell,
BAN THIS GORY-MIDGET-CLOWN-RAPE PORN!
Feminists actively fishing for porn that sexually offends them sounds like a anti-bacon radicalized Muslim hopping from restaurant to restaurant for days on end only to gorge on bacon, to savor its sinful salty taste until he manages to find the one stale bacon strip then, he snaps and with mouth full of bacon he stands up & yells,
Then he detonates his very Halal anti-bacon vest (clarification: the proper suicide expression is “ALLAHU-AKBAR” but the bacon bits coming from his mouth distorted the pronunciation. Apologies to all
triggered stressed suicide bombers reading this)
More seriously, it does not make sense for feminists to oppose all forms of porn and to claim all of it is harmful and dysfunctional. Which begs the question what kind of fucked up porn do they watch? Problem is they will not admit to their porn watching habits but this leads us to an even more interesting and filthier question;
How many kinds of porn are there?
Well judging by the matrix of all things being porn (our dear porny internet) in my own rough estimates the surface web might contain around,
- 70% of hetero porn (aka “vanilla porn”)
- 25% would be lesbian porn marketed at hetero audiences (male gay porn, transporn and all other eccentric forms thrown in)
- *5% which would be the illegal violent dysfunctional kind (child/rape/snuff and dysfunctional paraphilias)
This last 5% would be a radfem favorite because it is just the one to immediately blow out of proportion for that small 5% to fit their narratives. Of course, from the point of view of radical feminist demagogues it is more convenient to claim that 99% of all online porn is “violent and dysfunctional” than the estimated 5%.
In essence we have a loud, previously raped, sexually dysfunctional and anorgasmic minority of radical lesbians trying to tell the world how and when to fuck. Feminism is a ghost restaurant for the sexually anorexic, good luck having a meal there.
*Note: 5% is my estimate was based on another 5% related to the number of estimated serial rapists on campuses but I will be glad to include more accurate estimates if you provide sources for them. BTW I found many infographs and stats but none of them reflected a percentage of “dysfunctional porn” available online (you can google “porn infographic” then hunt down the references but none seemed to that category, or even worse, you find estimates from hard-line Christian sites)
VANILLA PORN IN FLUX
Well first of all, Vanilla Porn is not Vanilla Sex as much as a new car is not a fucking transformer from a Michael Bay movie. Vanilla porn features sexual Olympians with above average bodies and sexual drives performing acrobatic and flamboyant sexual acts which always lead to the most elaborate and eccentric orgasms because porn follows the logic of dreams. Porn is very much like dreams: inspired by but removed from reality.
The reason why Vanilla porn is so successful is because Vanilla sex is quite mediocre.
Vanilla porn is satisfaction and Vanilla sex is compliance. Couples with Vanilla sex watch Vanilla porn the way a fat rhino on a treadmill looks at the poster of a pretty unicorn for inspiration. That is why Vanilla porn has become a staple for websites like brazzers bang bros or other similar well known sites. It is an affordable filthy ideal.
Obviously the biggest sexual tragedy to human kind is having sex with a feminist. Why? Because most of them are godawful–boil-in-the-ass-ugly and/or anorgasmic thus they have a Nun-ish, prudish and deformed way of perceiving sex and even harmless sex toys are rather “problematic” or only for “sexual deviants“,
Leaving the feminist failures of human kind aside, what are the features of Vanilla porn? Well, it mostly features vaginal anal and oral penetration using one or several erect penises or their replacement AKA sex toys. If the 3 take forms of penetration take place at once it is usually referred as “airtight”. Alternatively, tongues and limbs can be used for anal and vaginal penetration but mostly what is used is much smaller, thinner limbs belonging to lesbian performers in forms of Vanilla porn marketed to hetero audiences. The use of mouths and tongues as improvised sexual organs or suction devices is also common but mostly, they are used for stimulation of orifices or genitals. Saliva, vaginal secretions and sperm are common and eccentrically used. Blood, nasal secretions and excrement are absent in Vanilla porn.
See the contradictions? 30 years ago nearly all of the acts above may have been considered “hard-core“. 60 years ago? Toxic and Sinful. But nowadays? Just Vanilla.
Here is one thing that many people do not notice, there are two things Japan is almost always ahead of the west: technology and experimental porn.
Today’s Japanese experimental hard core porn is our future Vanilla Porn.
(Fortunately, licking the cornea of a partner went out of fashion in Japan. Unfortunately, enemas containing living eels seems to be gaining momentum and seems to be in our own Western porn roadmap)
However, what is truly fascinating is how online Vanilla porn resembles another (seemingly) unrelated and distant industry that also offers massive, always available, nearly instantaneous satisfaction to a different set of physiological needs: The fast food industry.
SWEET SWEET JUNK FOOD FOR THE GENITALS
See the human animal is a complex and paradoxical one, if the average person in the west has physiological needs, the satisfaction is immediate or it goes roughly like this,
- Food?->Junk Food/Fridge
- A drink? ->Fridge
- Urinate/defecate? ->Bathroom
- Fuck? ->Internet…
The last one is the paradoxical one, instead of “Internet” it should be sexual worker or sexual partner. But, given the aforementioned limited choice, high cost and chronic mediocrity of real sex vs the beautifully obscene and lush variety of eccentric ways to ejaculate offered by the internet; online porn wins.
No wonder why online porn paved the way for the modern internet. And no wonder why sexually functional men and women prefer the internet for a quick wank-fix. Real sex is ants, online porn is satellites.
The reality is that Vanilla Porn is far more satisfying than reality when all the costs and risks are considered: Real sex levels of quality fluctuate too much, there is no quality control and the removal of the service is always unpredictable along with the also unpredictable risk of irreversible health problems.
Furthermore, on the legal side becoming an ATM-sperm donor after a divorce or being falsely accused of rape then subjected to a trial by social media. None of those risks is present with porn. (besides stiffness in the arms is quite bearable). Because of all this we are on the brink of an extraordinary filthy revolution: VR porn then fuck-bots. That is in the near future, let’s talk about our filthy present and the many shades of online porn available.
As stated before, legal porn has a wide array of manifestations but the list is always incomplete and will keep growing we as new “variants” of porn are created at least every 2 years. If there was an equivalent to Moore’s law for porn it would state,
“Pr0n’slaw is the observation that, over the history of online porn, the number of porn weirdness combined with paraphilias found in online communities and ecosystems, doubles approximately every two years”
That is to say that as technology progresses so will porn weirdness. Many, many, maaaaany forms of porn are considered to be or overlap with one or several paraphilias.
So far, 549 paraphillias have been classified and the number of porn varieties that overlap, combine or modify one or several paraphilias just saturates the mind. (If internet porn had a body it would look like a sentient omnivorous Chinese cuisine cookbook from hell, high on meth+ PCP, constantly churning out new untested porn recipes)
BTW, the 549 number is just a place holder for what may very be a much higher number in offline reality. Yes, there may be legal sexual things so dark and filthy some people may not be proud to share with the internet yet, just be patient, one of the X-Chans will eventually release those sexual Krakens.
But why are paraphillias important? Because they are considered mental disorders and that is a key word for feminist radcunts to salivate like Pavlovian hounds at the opportunity of declaring all porn a “mental disorder”.
Let’s say you have developed (or were born with the potential for) the somehow “classy” paraphillia called Agalmatophilia (i.e. you exclusively wanna sexually ravage polyester mannequins with untold lust) Is there a victim to your “weird” preference?
Of course the feminists would have a hard time convincing a polyester mannequin about suing the owner for sandpaper condom for his rough sex. But that is where the feminists would want a “catch-all” law to avoid making themselves a laughing stock (if doing more so were even possible) and make all porn illegal.
Remember, being a feminist means feeling life only but not thinking about it, it is all about impulsiveness and lack of reasoning as well as other things taken away,
But, which ones in the growing list of paraphilias truly are on the verge of being illegal? Which ones are not? Well that is where things are very flexible, (perhaps too much) if we are talking about two consenting adults, they can do as much as they want to themselves and to each other as long as they do not murder anybody (this unfortunately includes extremes such as self harm to name just one) however this “flexibility” has to be calibrated with the laws of the country in question and the field of classification of mental disorders which truly is a field that requires the dispassionate reasoning feminists consistently lack.
And precisely because of that feminists fail at understanding the nature of porn; the act of dispassionate reasoning happens to be anathema to feminist dogma.
Any precise, granular reasoning is not to pass through their wall of emotions. Which puts them in a prison without walls; their passion prevents them from observing or understanding their own mistakes and objective reality as a whole.
So what does porn do to men then? Contrary to the church of feminism and its gospel, porn is more likely to be a deterrent to sexual “deviancy” because it works as junk food on its clients. It is immediate, it is easy to obtain and usually its users become addicted to it (however, it is more of a compulsion than an “addiction”, as much as you don’t have an “addiction to washing your hands” rather it should be referred as a “compulsion to porn” ). The inconvenient, not too advertised fact of “average Joes who masturbate to porn extremely often” (“Addicted Wankers” or AW’s for short) is that a male that masturbates too often, gets too tired, gets headaches, penisaches and to top it off, also gets the post ejaculatory munchies (somehow reminiscent of pothheads, possibly nothing gets mellower than pothead AW’s).
Contrary to their religion, ever since the advent of porn from filthy movie theaters into living rooms in the early 80’s via Betamax and VHS tape-filth, then online porn, the rates of sexual assault have been plummeting in the western world. (Almost as if the more religiously repressive the culture, the more fucked “unwanked” celibate men get, like crazy cows nobody milks).
Along with the fact that legalizing porn has also resulted in a correlation in the reduction of sex crimes in several countries. However, the causation is still a matter of disagreement in many fronts. In short, online Porn may reduce rape but if you as a feminist? That is always “problematic” or a lie.
The predictable accusation from feminists (just like Anita who claims videogames cause sexual violence) would be that without porn men naturally rape. The simple answer is that ~5% of the male population who were born/raised serial rapists are very similar to serial killers: They are a very small percentage of criminals that terrify the confused masses.
But unlike serial killers, it would stand to reason the borderline sexual psychos (not the 5% serial rapists) would just stay home, watch fucked up porn and jerk off and get fat on Doritos. (if the porn-rape correlation is true, that would be bad news for Anita, Why? Because videogames would also REDUCE not increase sexual violence with the 5% of psychos)
But what do feminists do? Instead of seeing the benefits of massively mellow wankers or the 5% of psycho-wankers getting fatter everyday (thus unable to effectively chase and rape a victim) feminists are still outraged porn exists so pervasively. Granted, many feminists are so fat that even the aforementioned fat mellow wankers would catch them. But again, why would they? Feminist godawful–boil-in-the-ass-ugliness renders them unrapeable. Even raping a desk would be more satisfying. Or like Natasha Leggero put it,
But humor does not count with feminists prudes like Anita Sarkeesian, to them men, are the attackers, the deviants that only want to fuck and rape and watching porn. They are hypocrites, both men and women watch online porn, men overreport and brag, women under-report and play coy. And feminists? Those are sexual deviants too. Equality for everyone,
Again, jokes and logic just fly over the heads of religious people
The problem with religious people and feminists is that they cannot be persuaded. If confronted with logical arguments, radfems will cover their ears and yell over and over
“No! Porn is porn!”
Just the way members of the Westboro Baptist Church would cover their ears and yell
“No! Sin is sin!”
(ironically, WBC members also consider porn veeeery sinful. Perhaps they should consider merging with their radfem sisters now that Freddy Phelps has long kicked the bucket).
However, the definition of “sin” is incredibly broad and includes perfectly lawful acts (even worse, it also includes thoughts) here is where the definition of “porn” mimics “sin” because it is such a broad definition that it even attempts to ban both perfectly legal acts and thoughts related to porn. And just like you do in front of religious people, “thou shall not speak/think of porn” in front of feminists.
The second problem is that, unlike lawful acts versus purported “sins”, porn is easily placed in a shameful often “indefensible” category based on morals. The phrase “too much porn on your computer” is often used for social shaming, despite the fact that “too much porn” is in and of itself a blurry definition.
How about religious people themselves?
Do they think of sin too much?
How much is “too much temptation”?
How about feminists themselves?
Do they think of porn too much?
How much is “too much temptation”?
Depending on the morals of the culture, demagogues may attempt to make all porn look as bad as illegal porn. Which brings us to the definitions of what forms of porn are truly illegal and detrimental to humankind,
FORMS OF ILLEGAL PORN
1. Child porn
2. Rape/Snuff porn
3. Bestiality porn
NOTE ON CHILD PORN: Even though leftists and websites like Salon.com have recently tried to shamelessly normalize pedophilia via the argument “Virtuous pedophile” pedophilia itself is a completely indefensible argument. Pedophilia destroys the future of a human being and normalizing it will only lead to more child porn.
NOTE ON RAPE/SNUFF PORN: The second one features authentic acts of executions and rape. However, when it comes to public executions or gore due to events like road accidents nearly nothing can be done legally because recording gory images is not illegal (unless the family of the diseased sues). What is entirely illegal and should be punished with life imprisonment or death penalty is the cases of snuff film featuring authentic private executions. The most difficult one to discern is the last one, rape porn. The reason for this difficulty is that actors and actresses can portray acts of rape that are indistinguishable from an authentic rape and unless the person presses charges, we cannot know if it was authentic. However, there are limits to the levels of body harm an actor/actress can withstand and if the injuries are life threatening then the likelihood of it being an authentic rape are much higher.
NOTE ON BESTIALITY PORN: Even if there are people who actually date and marry their dogs (even if treat them excellently) they still have no case in court because unlike humans, animals have no capability to give consent to sex (however being a female feminist and claiming past “abuse” may allow the twisting of the law to get away with marrying her German shepherd or a smaller dog as it has already happened)
Now that those 3 are out of the way, feminists will still try to compare all legal forms of porn to child/rape/snuff porn. Even with the writing on the wall, feminists will still try to label all the legal colorful variants of porn “illegal“. It is not short-sightedness, it is feminists behaving like creationists, pig-headed, unpersuadable regardless of all evidence, willing to remain intellectually blind, morons.
A creationist will still say that the earth is 10K years old even if you make them major in archaelogy as much as a feminist will still insist legal porn is a crime even if they have majored in….never mind, women’s studies is theology.
Both feminists and creationists are unpersuadable.
For the sake of argument, let’s entertain the possibility that 5 porn “stars” are actually raped every year. If these crimes took place, did they file a police report? Here is where the noise starts as the typical anti porn feminist will try to
- Bring up colorful excuses for the adult performer not to “have been able to take legal action”
- Say the crime took place in the third world
- Do a hypocritical “switcheroo”
What is the “switcheroo” you may ask?
Well the “switcheroo” is a tool well known for demagogues, it consists of telling a victim’s sad moving story (real or imaginary) then the demagogue stresses and details the victim’s suffering, their struggle, their pain and once the audience is moved and engaged (or enraged by the double espresso emotional noise) Their outrage, is wide awake & ready to be exploited by using the switcheroo. This is done by making the subtle, fleeting implication the same suffering experienced by the victim happens to the public the demagogue is speaking to. THEN they are convinced they too are victims then the demagogue convinces them they are the “oppressed” too. Does this ring the bell?
The “switcheroo” is the art of subtle verbal sleight of hand to manipulate the masses.
In the case of feminists and their version of the “switcheroo”, first they start by speaking of the authentic and real hardships female sex workers in the 3rd world have to go through and how they are mistreated and underpaid then, they do the “switcheroo” and now the feminist demagogue claims women in the 1st world are suffering EXACTLY as much as those in the 3rd. This is a careful form of verbal sleight of hand (instead of just plain lying) by manipulating the audience’s emotions and making them believe porn is a mixture of violent, illegal prostitution combined with rape with zero distinctions between the 1st and the 3rd world.
Now, the oldest form of switcheroo can be found in churches where the charismatic demagogue starts talking about a martyr’s suffering then they do the “switcheroo” aaaaaand, what do you know? All of sudden the demagogue and all the people in the church are victims too! Just like the martyr. (also at this point is where they pass the basket for you to tithe, a pretty slick business strategy if you ask me…). These masters of the art of “switcheroos” play around with the audience to artificially reduce their perception of their own agency (but not their agency as a whole as they can still undertake the task of retribution), to make them feel “oppressed”.
Hitler comes to mind as he used similar techniques; making the Jews look as the dominant class then portraying the Germans as the “oppressed” ones, as Aryan “victims” of sorts. It is all about convincing the audience they have no agency, no power to control anything, that they are the ones acted upon, but the Germans were not alone using the switcheroo, look,
Since the church of feminism uses the same “switcheroos” during their fundrising “masses” we can separate the noise from the facts. They make emotional noise to control people but the fact is that they just lie for profit.
But these hypocritical “switcheroo” manoeuvres date back to even before the inquisition, it is therefore, not surprising, demagogues and religion are like pigs and bacon. Unlike porn and bacon, they are far from being delicious.
Feminists need to push for laws and lobbying to avoid learning any science, which, in and of itself, is also a potential risk, because the prospect of feminists invading science (less likely but they have tried) to co-opt it or (more likely) bypassing it through demagogy to get all porn banned (I am looking at you citizens of the Orwellian Surveillanced UK). But since feminists can go and fuck themselves let’s get back to the main question,
What scientific criteria outside morals can be used to identify harmful porn?
This begs the question, harmful for whom?
Harmful for just one of the porn performers or all of them?
This is where this article will go into a different territory, so, please bear with me. For porn and human sexuality in general to be accurately and scientifically classified we would have to stop looking at the performer’s genitals and see if their brains are experiencing pleasure through future versions of MRI technology and other technologies.
THE DARK NEURAL AGES
The dark ages
Imagine we place a couple of performers under an MRI and make them watch their own performances then we see their arousal and pleasure centers in their brains. They would have to be strapped to the machine as the scanning is interrupted if you move even tenth of an inch. ( In short, current technology is not ready for porn prime time because only the effects of blowjobs and cunnilingus in the brain could be scanned because the performer’s brain needs to remain static)
Let’s say 15 years into the future MRI does not require you to be immobilized to be scanned and rather you have to wear a rather bulky helmet, (Porn Daft Punk + Porn Teletubbies MRI porn or sorts, told you it would get weirder) then we would ask the performers to have intense rough intercourse (whichever the most controversial is in 15 years) then we would see if their brains would light up with mostly “pleasure” or mostly “pain” or to get the resulting ratio of sexual pleasure: sexual pain.
If that form of future porn were to be considered “harmful” for one of the performers their brains would be blinking like Christmas trees with pain and no pleasure at all. Problem is, in life, there is no pleasure without struggle and authentic human sexual intercourse involves all intensities of both pain and pleasure so it could be hypothesized, we would go by percentages to declare the porn in question “kosher porn” or, roughly 51% average pleasure + no safe word use (i.e. performer was given the choice to stop the act at any time by saying the word/giving a signal) which would make the porn qualify as lawful because the performer enjoyed himself/herself at 51% and did not have to use the safe word plus they got paid handsomely. You can see where this is going right? A lot of radcunty feminist worms would come out of that future porn can, for example,
Feminists’ Possible impulsive rebuttals to the 51% pleasure rule
“Your science is misogynistic! It should be 95% pleasure at the very least!”
Supporters (producers and performers looking to get paid )
“Can we lower it to 10% pleasure? Pay is higher…”
You could not make anybody happy, not now, not in the future, mostly because emotional thinkers are not authentic thinkers, so science would be “misogynistic” and would demand “neurological enthusiastic consent” or some other form of blackmail bullshit to game the system and prevent the science. Like any religion, feminism is an obstacle for the advancement of science.
However the ramifications of a future MRI test like the one described above, just make the mind explode if we consider the same test applied to false rape accusations aided by mass surveillance feeds..
Yes, we live in the good old days of the simpler NSA
Science becomes “misogynistic” when it prevents lying. Let’s just imagine the implications of having scanned let’s say 1,000 brains of authentic rape victims (authentic meaning confirmed by data from Google glass-like devices worn by most people in 15 years, yes, 2014 is the good old days of the simpler NSA)
Let’s say the data of the 1, 000 victims is cross referenced with data scans from authentic rape victims coming from war-torn countries (most likely African ones, unfortunately) we would then see a pattern of how the brain is affected by sexually induced PTSD regardless of geographical location, human neurology would have averages, let’s say the sample group grows to 1, 000,000 victims. Just imagine the fits feminists will throw to have all evidence dismissed in court just to facilitate a false rape accusation after the alleged “victim” and her brain just do not match at all the patterns from the 1,000,000+ authentic rape victims. It is likely it will get harder for them to fake it but feminists will learn how to lie better. Just as they do today with porn.
Back to the present, (and thank you for bearing with me) the constant today and in the future will be feminists lying for effect, be it lying about porn being “a war against women” or porn being “rape” which by the way, also puts a dent in the myth of “rape culture”. If rape culture existed wouldn’t snuff/rape porn be the only one to be considered “kosher”? Why would a father kill his daughter’s rapists as it has happened so many times from the dawn of time? If rape culture existed wouldn’t make more sense for fathers whose daughters were raped to track the rapists down just to have a beer with them? Fathers would greet them and thank them for the merry raping of his daughter and after patting them on the back they would all hug, rise their beers and offer a boisterous toast,
And both the father and his daughter’s rapists would hug and walk towards the sunset while holding a beer with the other hand as the “chariots of fire” theme plays in the background.
Of course, the beer the song and the hugs and all of that would be customary if the myth of “rape culture” existed. (But if you instead liked banjo music to celebrate the merry raping of your daughter, who am I to judge your music taste?)
But the reality of human sexuality is that porn does not encourage rape in functional individuals (the vast majority of us) and the vast majority of human beings do not rape because jails would be filled with them (or jails would not exist anymore).
We humans, despite all of our flaws, have survived incredible tests and against all religions and dogmas, we have made it to this day because, more than 51% of the time, we were doing something right; we cared for our community and for our population, for each other.
Every population has its criminals and for a society to work, criminals cannot outnumber the functional individuals as much as a society exclusively based on cannibalism will not last. Imagine a past where the first human tribe dictated everyone should try to rape everyone at all times, then people would have sooner or later snapped and the mass revenge killings would have prevented us all from being here today. So if porn does not encourage imaginary wars or imaginary rape what does it do?
The energy investment between watching porn and going out and raping someone is exponential. Of course that between the sexual junk food of porn and the purported “act of war of rape” most males are just going to stay home and jerk off. One because they are not criminals and two, well, raping is too much work.
Allow me to enrage all of you Jezebel and tumblr radfems undercover readers with the following statement
“The problem with rape is not the morals. Rape is just too much work, too expensive, morals are secondary.”
(please quote me to oblivion, hang on, let me get it for you)
The high cost of rape
On one hand, (unfortunate pun) jerking off while watching legal porn involves no crime and almost no energy involved whereas rape is a crime that will land the male in jail for decades and involves so much work! Why work to lose your freedom when you can fap?
However, the feminist religion rhetoric demands logic to be secondary to morality thus males have to prove their “worthiness” by stating it and making public displays of shame on behalf of the rapist, this display should work as tacit collective public display of being ashamed of being male, of being a “male sinner rapist against the collective radcunt goddess” to be more specific. This semi religious collective display does not yet require self-flagellation but may at some point. By this “feminist logic” ethnic groups should apologize for stereotypical crimes normally committed by them and so on. Let’s see the world by the absurdity of the “feminist logic” If all men should apologize for rapists then, how about,
- all black people apologizing profusely for all the car stereos stolen in the 20th century? (That surely was a “war on stereos”, or “crimes against music”).
- Asians being required to apologize preemptively before driving and apologize/feel ashamed for all past and future traffic accidents
- Declaring Pearl Harbor an Asian act of war on driving?
- Requiring a preemptive apology from all Mexicans living in Mexico for all diarrheas caused by bad burritos in the US?
- Requiring all women to apologize before they say anything.
No. None of it makes no sense. (well, the last one does with feminist)
There is no need to be ashamed for someone else’s wrongdoing as much as there is no need to feel any shame for the crimes committed by serial killers. Outrage? Yes. Shame? No.
Nature eats nurture
But what does it take to be a rapist then?
Again, we come back to the absurd feminist “logic”. You run out of porn and immediately go out and… rape…right?
Rape a desk instead. Please.
Do you tell your victims “sorry, the internet ran out of porn”?
Do you have to be reminded every morning “rape is not ok” by your female family members?
How about “hit and run” reminders or just murder in general?
How about not hijacking power wheelchairs?
How about not raping a disabled person on top of the power wheelchair while it runs at full speed?
How about a reminder not to rape the family dog?
How about the cat?
How about a tax evasion reminder? (just to be…safe?)
How about just giving condoms for safer raping in case all warnings fail?
Here is the other inconvenient truth; being a rapist requires being dysfunctional either by birth or by nurture so out of that estimated 5% of dysfunctional porn fans.
How many are really likely to go out and commit the crime instead of just googling their broken fantasies at home?
How about a 5% of males in campuses being the actual serial rapists?
How many are natural-born rapists or nurtured rapists? Well, that is the other sublime inconvenient truth, single mothers provide us with the most criminals in society, including 60% of all convicted rapists along with more than 70% of all inmates single mothers producing more than 70% of all inmates in American prisons statistics and massive literature conclusively show. Yes, it has been proven over and over that the vast majority of inmates in American jails were raised by single mothers.
What a sublime irony when feminists declare porn to be “rape” while feminists+single mothers raise at least 60% of actual rapists in American jails, we can’t imagine a more blatant exercise in hypocrisy than the one performed by feminists.
You feminists/single mother radcunts are causing the 5% serial rapist problem by raising the most dysfunctional fatherless boys and you have the gall to blame it all on porn.
You feminists are like a condom avoiding, AIDS-ridden, 50-year-old, life-long whore who blames all of her problems on a hangnail.
I look forward to the day when feminists hypocrisy is suspended and all of you single mother/feminists radcunts, face the music, raise your hemlock cocktails and say this loudly & proudly,
“TO MY SON, THE RAPIST I CREATED!”
Thank you for reading.
PS: After some light banning I am back on twitter! BTW here is a friendly invitation to all of you colorful headed ladies on Prozac; follow me on twitter & be unhappy everyday!