Category Archives: Men’s Issues

I will discuss the Men’s Movement on The Magic Sandwich Show, Sunday, July 12, 2015

I will appear as a guest on The Magic Sandwich Show, on  Sunday, July 12th, 2015.

We will be discussing The Men’s Movement, and a number of related topics. It will be an introductory level talk. Expect many definitions, distinctions and clarifications. Come and join us!


Man released after 4 years, false rape accusation

And yet another for the “collection.” :/

After 4 years of prison, Jonathan Montgomery is finally free.

In a bench trial, Montgomery was convicted of forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery and object sexual penetration.

He was sentenced to forty-five years with all but seven and a half years suspended.

17 year old Elisabeth Coast, in 2007 accused Jonathan Montgomery of taking advantage of her seven years earlier in 2000 when she was just 10 years old and Montgomery was 14.



Huffington post endorses sexual violence against men

The Huffington Post has decided that sexual violence against men is “comedy”.

Shame on the Huffington Post. I recommend that anyone having a subscription to the magazine cancel it immediately.

FireShot Screen Capture #101 - '8 Sex Positions That Will Blow His Mind and Destroy His Penis I Reductress' - www_huffingtonpost_com_reductress_8-sex-positions-that-will_b_3381552_html

8 Sex Positions That Will Blow His Mind and Destroy His Penis, regendered.

8 Sex Positions That Will Blow Her Mind and Destroy Her Vagina.

Sometimes you want to make love. And sometimes, you just want to destroy your woman’s vagina. Check out the eight sex positions below that’ll be sure to rock her cunt off.


1. The Flip-it-and-reverse-it Corkscrew
Have your woman lie on her back and mount her reverse-cowboy style, facing her feet. Then go into a mini-backbend with the back of your head towards her face. Now grind into her like your trying to free a cork out of wine bottle with a broken corkscrew. The painful grip is sure to destroy her vagina.


2. The One-Two Punch
This one’s not so much a sex position as it is an intimate way to relieve stress. After a long day of work, come home, light some candles, put on your favorite tunes, then punch your woman in the twat. This will definitely take her by surprise, and you will most certainly destroy her vagina.


3. Under the Bleachers
Not ready for home base? There are plenty of ways to satisfy your woman without going all the way. Consider giving her a hand-job and never stopping ever. Her vagina will be ruined.

To read more of this article and more exciting men’s media, visit Reductress today.


Tagged , ,

Men may not be believed if they come forward

At about 2:10 Ian McNicholl explains that “Violence is a gender neutral issue. It’s wrong for a man to hit a woman. Violence of any description is wrong, so that wouldn’t have solved it. I can’t say why she committed the level of violence that she did. The fact for a man is that there are additional difficulties that they may not be believed if they come forward.”

This reminds me of the common Feminist argument that women who make false accusations should not be charged because it might dissuade real victims. Well, when men are commonly not believed, we can understand why we might not come forward, and why it is so facile to dismiss accusations of violence toward men, by women.

Tagged ,

Admitted false rape accusation, 9 years in jail, accuser not charged

Cassandra Kennedy Admits Lying About Father Raping Her, Man Released From Prison After Nine Years

Same old same old. Merely adding another example to the heap that is currently on this blog. One day, I’ll tag them, and when people ask for evidence of false-rape accusations, I’ll have a ready-made link. And this does not count the many, many other examples that I have not linked to.

Tagged ,

It’s a Ma’am’s world

Two excellent analogies for how men and women currently interact relative to the Feminist hypothesis of Patriarchy, the alleged one-sided “oppression” of women. Men call it being treated like a disposable utility, in the case of these analogies, a hireling, someone who gets the job done then is told to take a hike.

Feminism purports “oppression” without acknowledging the benefits (“the privileges”) that come with the contract, and so uses this as a moral justification to demonize men. Many men see this set up as being taken advantage of.

Either both engage in the contract, or not. When men choose not to, because they see the contract as being inequitable, it’s called “MGTOW.” When men try to bring awareness of this, and change the laws that have taken this cultural norm of a contract into law, it’s called Men’s Rights Activism. When people simply discuss this issue free of the Feminist framework, it’s called Men’s Issues Advocacy.

Dear Feminists: want to smash the patriarchy? Be completely self-reliant, and make any exchange a mutually agreeable contract: do your own work, fend for yourself. We men certainly do. Feminists have spent years demonizing men, pointing to only to men’s advantages, and ignoring their obligations and disadvantages, while focusing exclusively on women’s inconveniences and ignoring the advantages that the contract brings them.

I especially appreciate the author’s conclusion: men have to stop offering, and women have to stop expecting. Women only expect the incessant freebies because men so undervalue what they have to offer, and so overvalue what women have to offer that they pay to give it away. “Oh! You want to go to Montana? Let me take you there, and while we’re at it, I’ll pay you for the trip! Can I throw in some extra free lunches for you? Would that incite you to ride my bus?”

We men are half the problem.

Tagged , , , ,

Affirmative consent is merely Rape of the gaps

Based on a YouTube conversation…

Rape of the Gaps



Trigger warning: long as a train going into a tunnel…

“i am, indeed, a proponent of the idea that making consent a prerequisite before sex is a reasonable limitation on individuals during sexual interactions, as a matter of ethical conduct…”

Consent before sex, before eating, before work, before anything is the hallmark of a civilized society.

This, however, is not what Senate Bill No. 967 (the “Affirmative Consent Law”) proposes. I’m not sure that you’re familiar with the law (the bill, really) in question. Find it here for clarity’s sake, it’s a reasonably easy read:

In short, the law states that if universities want government funding, that they must enact policies that use affirmative consent as a standard to determine whether or not a rape has been committed. It propose that lack of of constant affirmation thought-out sexual activity is sexual assault. It is not merely “Would like you like to make love to me?” once followed by a yes-or-no; it is the Rape of the Gaps argument: every interaction that is not demonstrated to have had expressed verbal consent is a form of sexual assault.

The problem is that in case someone comes forth, claiming to be a victim of rape, the university must in fact demand evidence of non-rape on the part of the accused, the proving of a negative, and from someone who more often than not is not given the ability to respond, who is denied due process rights in the disciplinary hearing.

Of course, the only means by which evidence of consistent consent can be presented is via video, which of course, requires the consent of both participants before hand-holding begins, and the willingess of the disciplinary committee to admit it.

But there’s more. The accusation of rape is of course retroactive to any supposed act, and this is what makes it so dangerous. In addition to the many institutional and cultural prejudices against men in universities, and the standard of preponderance of evidence (50.1% more likely than not) versus the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a highly politicized arena makes it so dangerous to men’s careers, freedom and future that the law itself is an unjust law. It is not designed to prevent rape as much as it is to assuage a lobbying group.

One of the reasons that the law has been pushed was to meet the condition of where a woman does not express consent, for reasons ranging from immobilization by terror, to mere discomfort at saying “no.” It is a law, designed on the basis that women are victims, and have such a flimsy character that they cannot even squeak out a “no” because they “froze.”

I the past, a popular witch-detection method was to make the accused submit to The Lord’s Prayer Test, in which the person had to recite the Lord’s Prayer without making any mistakes. It was believed that only the innocent could recite it all the way through without error, as surely those possessed by the Devil could never manage to recite holy words. Unfortunately, words are insufficient, and video is either impossible, or just as subject to any interpretation as one might wish to make a case.

“but, that being said, i have a lot of problems with the idea of mandating or legislating the method a set of individuals uses to gain and assess that consent.”

/me nods.

“i agree with the spirit of the law, just not the letter. a well-meaning, poorly thought-out proposal by well-meaning, poorly thought-out people.”

If you don’t mind, I’d like to gently point out that what causes this conversation to arise is that you aren’t familiar with either the spirit or the letter of the given law. I absolutely believe that you have honourable and moral intentions and, I do agree with you firmly that sex is a matter of consenting adults. Both adulthood, and consent should be a prerequisite. Where I disagree with you is that those who have lobbied for this bill are well-meaning, or that they have not fully thought this out.

But I’m a cynic, that way.

Tagged , ,

Real world effects of gynocentrism gone rampant

Again, false accusation of rape, the ruining of lives. The reason? Gynocentrism gone unchecked. Would this have happened to a woman were the roles reversed? I doubt it.

I congratulate Laura Wilson for coming forward to help Scott Espinoza. He spent 589 days in jail, and avoided a 35 year sentence but is forever branded a rapist because of a false rape allegation.

Tagged ,

An excellent case study on Feminist use of language to frame thoughts

Feminists are excellent at is controlling the mental framing of an argument. Notice that in every instance that Mike made a point, that she immediately changed the scope of the conversation. She does not announce “I am now changing the scope!” She does it entirely by presupposition, in a fluid manner. This is the tool that all skillful Feminists use, I would guess, 80% of the time. The benefits is that it seems conversationally “natural” and that to to stop the technique, one must get bogged down by refuting the presupposition, point by point, where as a response she need only apply the very same technique to the rebuttal. The only way to counter this that I’m aware of is to be able to simultaneously shift the frame again in such a way that her presuppositions are refuted, presuppositionally, and to grab the frame back and hold it.

This highlights, what I think is a difference in classical communication style between men and women. People who have “a masculine mindset” tend to all make the same error when dealing with such people: we reach for the explicit. But, like sex that does not need words, acceptance of ideas is often based on the non-verbal, and being explicit is actually counter-productive.

This particular debate about sexual consent on the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ provides a text-book example of both the arguments, techniques used. There are also two members, a man with short and white hair, and the woman sitting next to Mike Buchanan who simply nail it.

This video is worth keeping kept as a case-study.

Tagged , , , ,