= Necrophilia June 6, 2013Posted by FCM in logic, pop culture, porn, radical concepts, rape, trans.
Tags: male violence, men's search terms, porn
one week into it, i can report that the new mens search terms blog has been eye opening. specifically, in preparing the first hundred or so posts to go live, having a lot of data to review at the same time made it very easy to categorize mens search terms into their general themes, and to realize that there are indeed parameters within which men seem to be operating when they go online. mens depravity is not random, in other words, and its not individualized, despite what everyone else seems think or at least say. there are patterns and constants, and as creative as men are when it comes to envisioning and perpetrating violence and abuse, its all very much the same if you can just get your head around it.
their deviance doesnt deviate. get it? which means that we arent dealing in deviant behavior (or thought) at all, but rather we are observing males operating within male norms. from what i can tell from the data i have, the norms are as follows, and these are the “categories” of the search terms on the new blog:
autogynephilia; bestiality; castration/SRS; excrement; holocaust; inanimate objects; incoherent (but within sexual or violent contexts or both); men hate trannies; men will stick their dicks into anything; necrophilia; pedophilia; porn actress injuries; rape; sexualized racism; terrorism; things that don’t exist; torture; trafficking/slavery.
thats 18 general categories of “porny” search terms, and these 18 represent the gist of very nearly all the porny search terms we came across. the ones we left out as not falling into any of the 18 categories were very generic such as “fucking porn” or “violent porn” for example which had no relevance to this project, where all the search terms were pornographic and/or referred to sexualized violence (male violence against women, specifically womens breasts and genitals).
and some of these do overlap such as “rape” which can and does constitute “torture”. this overlap is especially obvious if it includes torture directed at female genitals above and beyond “mere” unwanted penetration (which is also torture). for example, when men rape girl children and babies, this counts as both rape and torture due to the extreme size differential and the problem of putting a large object into an especially small opening/organ. and filming a rape or other sexual offense would also constitute terrorism, as it is meant to terrorize women as a sexual class as well as producing a terrorizing effect on the victim who can never escape the predatory men who will use the images of her rape/torture forever, and even search for or recognize her in real life.
anyway, this is how the categories are being used, but what one also notices when viewing the extreme depravity of these search terms — and when considering the 18 categories and the ways they overlap — is that necrophilia seems to be the common denominator, or the one category that encompasses most if not all the rest.
for example, extreme violence is not compatible with life; therefore extreme violence could be said to be necrophilic. references to disembodied body parts, including sexualized body parts such as vaginas and anuses, are references to necrophilia because living beings cannot be separated from their parts without it killing them, or without being placed at extreme risk of death. raping babies — pedophilia — is incompatible with the babies life, and indeed often kills them. castration and “nullification” of genitals is incompatible with life, or at least it is incompatible with creating life.
and on that note, i actually dont have much of a problem with men who castrate themselves — more of them probably should — but one cannot escape the fact that castration has necrophilic connotations. thats the point really. castration can also constitute torture, or medical torture, and torture is incompatible with life. and infertile/castrated (or simply unable to gestate) males taking the place of females — nullification of class female, in other words — is obviously incompatible with life, womens lives and indeed all life everywhere. we end up there, no matter how we look at it.
and in reality, what is the “porn” context itself if not a necrophilic context? porn itself is not compatible with life, or more specifically with female life. we see this incompatibility play out where the average “life” of a female porn actor is months only, before she is forced to leave the industry forever. and thats assuming she survives at all.
of course, we also know that PIV itself is necrophilic the way men do it. it is incompatible with life — incompatible with womens lives, childrens lives, and indeed the entire world has been polluted and violated to its breaking point by men, sticking their dicks into women, and “creating” literally billions of unwanted or ambivalent children across time and place. pro-creation is actually destructive when men are allowed to do it the way *they* want it done, and when control over reproduction is taken out of womens hands and placed into mens. men use absolutely everything (including procreation) towards one ends — to destroy.
and in case anyone thinks this sounds familiar (“i cant do anything right!”) it does, doesnt it? (poor men — i can see how this could hurt their feelings. we cut off our dicks — necrophilia! if we keep our dicks (and use them) its necrophilia too!) but the fact of the matter is, yes, everything men do is necrophilic. literally. everything. perhaps especially when what they are doing is porn, or within a pornographic context, including PIV, rape, pedophilia, castration, bestiality, torture, terrorism, trafficking/slavery etc.
tangentially, the revelation of one partners “inability to do right” is often what happens at the end of a relationship, isnt it? im just saying.
Tags: amanda bynes, judge trudy, rape, reformism
many of us know by now that if you play mens games (voluntarily or involuntarily) you are bound to lose, if you are a female-bodied person. this might seem “unfair” or discriminatory or even like blatant insanity, and indeed some of us have been acting like this has all been just one big misunderstanding this whole time. that if we could only articulate the unfairness (or insanity) it would be magically remedied. as if the point of the game was equity, and the whole point was definitely NOT to benefit men at womens expense. interestingly, the “accidental unfairness” principle seems to be both the premise and the conclusion of equality activating. in other words, we work from the assumption that its all just a big mistake, and then no matter what evidence is forthcoming (including evidence that its all very deliberate indeed) we conclude that it mustve been an accident.
note that there is no room here for evidence, or reality, or changing course or anything except heading in the same direction forever. a notably circular direction. judge trudy — a skit from a childrens television program — illustrates the concept of bias and circular reasoning (and victim blaming!) perfectly. the premise of judge trudy is that the judge always sides with the children no matter what. the premise of the grown-up (patriarchal) legal system is not that different. get it?
so i was thinking about the alleged “logistical problem” we have in our prison system where there simply is not enough room for all the men who commit crimes. often times, violent offenders are released because there isnt enough room to house them all — one proposed remedy to this problem of overcrowding (of mens prisons by criminal men) has been to legalize drugs. okay, thats not a bad idea — if men dont have legal remedies backing up their property rights to their drugs, they resort to violence. give them ownership rights over their drugs and they might not kill each other over disputes of ownership, creating additional violent offenders “we” dont have room for. and, like, the fact that using drugs is a “victimless crime” or whatever, so users wouldnt go to jail just for using or buying drugs. but im more interested in the property ownership aspects of it at the moment.
we are all the time working with the understanding that men will kill each other and everyone if they are given even the slightest impetus to do so. no one ever says this directly, but this is the reality of it, isnt it? we wonder why men dont take rape seriously, and feminists speculate that its because a great number of men rape, and that they all benefit from it which is clearly true. but you know what else is probably true? the people who work in (patriarchal) law enforcement and the judicial system know for a fact that if he *only* raped you, you got off fucking easy. you are lucky he didnt kill you on top of it because thats what men do. and we dont have room for all the men who murder, attempt murder, or viciously assault, let alone those who “merely” rape, which is almost all of them depending on the definition you use (including the “legal” one, not incidentally). there isnt enough room for all of them. if men were punished for rape almost all of them would be in jail and practically none of them would be free and thats just no way to run a “society” is it? (or is it?)
but what would happen if there was no more property ownership at all? what if no one owned anything anymore, including drugs? there would be more violent offenders, as men took it upon themselves to protect something that doesnt legally exist — ownership rights over property. honestly, this outcome is quite terrifying, the upside being that suddenly there wouldnt be any more property offenses either. so presumably we would have all that extra space in our prisons currently being taken up by the perpetrators of property crimes, including the only crime besides being prostituted that women commit more frequently than men — shoplifting. we would finally have room for all the violent men who commit crimes of violence against actual people. one might initially assume that this would include violent offenses men commit against women, but not so fast.
rape is still a property crime, see. rape is not defined or discussed as other violent offenses are, as something harmful or reasonably likely to result in serious harm or death — it is defined and discussed in terms of “consent” which is the language of trespass, not violence. as in trespassing, on someones property, get it? we have discussed this before. if we did away with property crimes, opening up all that extra space in jail for violent offenders, the number of violent offenders would skyrocket as they killed each other over property disputes (because men are more or less inherently violent and there is no way to stop this or change it — ask anyone except a reformist-oriented feminist!) but notably, rape wouldnt be a crime anymore at all. men would kill each other for raping each others women so the murderers would be in jail but the rapists would be dead.
see what i did there? it is suspiciously as if men cannot be jailed for committing rape under any circumstances, using any reasoning. this quirk of reality could theoretically be “reformed” if it was an accident, but i dont think it is — if left to “chance” the statistical probability of any outcome (out of two) is about 50/50 but what we see is that men win all the time and women always lose, perhaps particularly in the area of criminalizing rape, and providing meaningful punishments/deterrents to men raping women. so can you reform a system that is actually working perfectly, and exactly as it was intended?
perhaps more importantly, why would anyone want to? dont you ever get sick of trying to teach men how to be good people (and then taking the blame when you almost inevitably fail)? the fact appears to be that men want things more or less the way they are — if they didnt, they would change it themselves. men, as a class, are violent, nasty and they oppress women voluntarily because they like oppressing women. they oppress us no matter what — if there is such a thing as “meaningful brain difference” they will oppress us based on that. if there is no evidence (or no accepted or “scientific” evidence) to be found (by themselves usually, as they are the ones in the position to look) of meaningful sex-based brain difference (or of whatever) they will oppress us anyway. somehow they will find a way to do it.
this rather notable “quirk” — that men oppress women no matter what — doesnt seem to mean much to reformist feminists, but it ought to. doing this work because you are scared to death of what men will continue to do (and what they will come up with next) if you dont is a bit short-sighted, and reactive at best. and its definitely no reason to conclude that theres any hope for men. honestly, i dont know where we come up with some of this stuff. feminists using bad reasoning and then maintaining perpetual support for their reformist position using coercive tactics including thought-termination is what it looks like to me. see the discussion here for more on that.
Moron Issue Framing. Or, Why Male Violence Against Women and Children Survives a Cost-Benefit Analysis December 19, 2012Posted by FCM in logic, politics, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: connecticut, gun control, male violence, sandy hook elementary school
the responses to recent calls for banning firearms in the wake of the sandy hook elementary school annihilation are stupefying. heres one now, from some allegedly pro-feminist dood equating male violence against other men with male violence against women and children. stupefying! or the even more stupefying “what about the pens!” argument: men will use any object as a weapon, (link within to a “school massacre” where the man used a hammer against children — and all the children survived their injuries, get it?) therefore we are obligated to make mens job of annihilating large numbers of women and children easier by giving them access to guns. what?
now, obviously, gun control is a harm-reduction strategy only. lets be clear about that: women generally are not so stupid as to ever believe that we can eliminate the problem of violent men, and reducing or eliminating mens access to guns will not cure or even reduce the problem of violent men. we have been in mens crosshairs since before there was such a thing as crosshairs mkay? we know guns arent really the problem, but to suggest a real solution (eliminating or reducing the number of men, or female separatism) garners us rape and death threats and worse. some of us do it anyway, because the problem of male violence against women is so ghastly and so penetrating and so real that it makes very little difference whether the threats against us are made more-overt. they are overt already.
and i am about as disinterested in harm-reduction strategies as anyone could
possibly reasonably be: which means that i am very interested in them, and i do think about them, but i dont like to waste my time writing or talking about them. other people can and do perform that function better than i ever could, and i am happy to let them — i invest my time and talent elsewhere, because thats what *i* do best. mkay? but look. even *i* cannot stand by whilst people make the same idiotic remarks on this issue, making false equivalences, stinking the place up with equality-rhetoric and worse. this is maddening. maddening! so allow me to try to help, if i may.
the problem, i think, is that in mainstream and even “feminist” discussions of male violence, there are several issues being discussed as if they are one issue, or different issues being discussed as if they are the same. when they arent the same at all. firstly, male violence against women is a different animal than male violence against other men. mkay? because women do not equal men and men do not equal women. women are the oppressed class, men are the oppressors. women are impregnated while men impregnate. get it? different, not the same. we have to assume meaningful sex-based difference, i think, and work from there, lest we fall into obfuscating and male-centric equality-rhetoric accidentally. if there are no meaningful sex-based differences implicated, thats one thing, but there frequently are.
secondly, from womens perspective, male violence against other men is bad too, but our reasons for thinking so are not mens reasons, or they cannot be assumed to be the same or even similar. okay? because women are not men and men arent women. clearly, if the issue of male violence against either women or men was the same issue for us as it is for them, women and feminists would probably care about it as much as men seem to care about solving the problem of male violence, including the problem of male violence against other men, which is to say we wouldnt care about it much at all. except to use it to derail, obfuscate and negate womens calls to reduce or eliminate male violence against women perhaps, like old tremblay did there with his “what about the pens?” its pretty useful for that.
to wit, i think we need to realize and accept that everything man-made that currently exists, exists because it has been found by men to survive a cost-benefit analysis. male violence against other men survives a cost-benefit analysis, and male violence against women survives a cost benefit analysis. to men. if it didnt, they would stop doing it. can we agree on that much at least? if not, please detail any reasonable disagreements below. i dont think there are any.
and when analyzing both sides of the equation of male violence against both women and men — the cost-side and the benefits-side — things like hierarchies, and power, and misogyny, and sadism, or the political usefulness of paralyzing fear might be too abstract to plug into a mathematical equation. for the purposes of understanding the cost-benefit analysis men are obviously applying toward male violence, i keep coming back to the issue of “gynergy” which isnt abstract at all — where women consistently put their time, resources and literally our life-energies into the survival and growth of ourselves and our children, this can be measured. when men kill *anyone* they are killing womens gynergy, and each child and indeed every adult is the embodiment of a real womans gynergy: a 6 year old child represents 6 years (and 9 months) of its mothers time, resources and her very self. a 50-year old, for that matter, represents 18 years (ok who are we kidding — the full 50…plus 9 months) of its mothers — and other womens! — gynergy. when a man kills someone, to the killer and to all men, the victim may be no more valuable within mens value system than any other 200- (or 50-) pound meatbag, (whats even the most expensive meat worth? not much) but that is not the value of a human life to women, as a sexual class, around the world, now is it?
and thats just the beginning of the discussion, i think. and the conclusions we will be forced to draw, when we analyze mens value system and compare it to ours, including the reasons for obvious difference will likely be devastating. but we have to do it dont we? at the very least we should probably shut the hell up if we cant make a decent observation about male violence so we dont confuse everyone. but that is kind of the point of doing it, when you are a man. right, tremblay?
male violence against women, and male violence against men, consistently survives a cost-benefit analysis to men and male supremacy — if it didnt, men would stop doing it. its time we look at the equation they are using, to figure out how they keep getting the result they are getting. and why we get a different result when we do the math. and if it seems cold and calculated to think of it in these terms, blame men mkay? if they werent all the time killing people, and obviously finding a net-gain to themselves in doing so, we wouldnt have to examine why that is, and whats in it for them, or to examine anyones values or the nature of our investments so closely. but they are, so we do. that is all.