Porn is War on Women, Part 1

DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent #GamerGate. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status. For those who stayed, behold;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was featured at theralphretort.com)

PORN IS WAR ON WOMEN

westboro feminists
(If feminists were slightly less dishonest.)

 

See? A catchy and inflammatory title like the one used for this article would have been very effective for a feminist website. Deceiving and pulling the emotional strings of an audience is a very effective strategy used by rad fems like Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Jessica Valenti and many others. It’s all about pulling the visceral strings of your audience through lying via emotional manipulation. It’s all about politics and religion painted in pink: Feminism.

Feminists consistently use this strategy, but not because they are authentic victims themselves. They do it for profit, for clicks, and for personal gain. Why? Because rhetoric from demagogues requires the infusion of dark and strong preemptive emotional noise in the title (hence the whimsy title for this article and the prestigious lady above). Once the audience drinks the double espresso emotional noise? Their outrage, is wide awake & ready to be exploited or pitted against any given target. In many ways, feminists and the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) share strategies.

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 the 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:

Actual War
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

The problem with extraordinary claims like “war on women” is that they need to be presented with extraordinary evidence but, alas, 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:

screenshot131

“SEE?! Men have always killed and raped women throughout history & they also ASS-whipped them in dungeons! THIS IS PATRIARCHY!!! IT IS WAR ON WYMYN..!”



OK, that’s enough.

Let’s use our patriarchal powers to silence the yelling, red, radcunt above from continuing her tirade. It would just be unrelated to 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:

Hillary.png

No. It is not a meme, nor a mediocre attempt at satire. It is an authentic quote completely within the context of feminism. If even high-profile feminists have these vast lapses of basic human decency and common sense (despite the fact they have a lot to lose), very little can be expected from the average feminist (who have much less to lose). In essence, the above quote is, just like feminists, disconnected from reality and misanthropic at best.

Objective reality is far from their dogmatic and delusional feminist view of reality. Throughout history, “killing women” was never a priority. The main goal was killing the ones wielding the weapons.

KILLING THE MEN.

If we compare actual war with the purported “war on women” the comparison completely 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 whenever needed.

No. War is about killing the enemy and the enemy has overwhelmingly consisted of male armies. Save 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 either enslaved or just let go. Again, we are talking about vast majorities, not exceptions. Feminists have the bad habit of bringing up one or two historical exceptions (such as the Amazons or other warrior women) to build their fake historical narratives around feminism. These only contradict their other narrative, which is that women are always the victims. The reality is that Female warriors were rare exceptions in the vast seas of male blood throughout human history. But again, just for the sake of argument, let’s consider the following:

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?

How about 7?
If so, what kind of porn qualifies as an act of war?

The answer is: None.

That is why feminists are laughable.

However, the Wikipedia page of feminist views on porn makes as much sense as an assembly of Radical 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 sexual assault and/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 they may be, 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. 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 else. 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 solipsistic heads. This is a broken process and 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” does not help either, because it is a lie feminists tell themselves too often. They say “It’s not my fault” not only to the crime that happened to them but to each and every one of their subsequent 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 they blame other people for their problems. Feminists also falsely believe that they have the higher moral ground. They live in a misery of their own daily making and they actively rationalize convoluted excuses to be royal, unbearable, radcunts.

But…

Do feminists even realize they are as irrational and impulsive as Salafi Muslims? 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. It is all about manipulation of the language, just like avoiding calling 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.

 

This is the end of part 1

Part 2 will deal with Porn itself so stay tuned but if you are a feminist, you will experience rectal suffering. 

PS

I hereby make these templates available for meme purposes, do with Anita the Nun whatever you please.

Feel free to treat her like an object because it is just a png file. 

Go ahead, #UpsetAllAnitas

Thank you for reading.

PORN IS WAR ON WOMEN (copy) TEMPLATE

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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

%d bloggers like this: