The Male Perspective: FEMINIST FASCISTS
He’s back! Our brave anonymous male author has returned with a new article for you. I hope you enjoy and please let me know your thoughts!
FEMINIST FASCISTS
Dear Readers of Bildo and fans of Pauline Hanson,
I once again decided to share my highly valued opinion after the surprising consent and support that the last article received.
More-so from females than males, restoring my hope for the future of my male children in the post-modern, pre-menstrual, she-rex wannabe, barbie envious and fashion industry driven women’s world.
Lets talk about sex.
Not like Billi talking dirty in bed with her Bruce Lee fantasies, but sex that our sons will be having with your daughters… leading to some disturbing Nazi generated ideals constructed by the Pauline Hanson feminists.
Consent
If John met Jill on the weekend, the following procedure would be LEGALLY required:
a) One would have to get consent for each step: – Want a drink? Want to talk? Lets go for a walk? – Yes ← consent given, bravo.
b) Further consent required: – Can I hold your hand? Can I put my arm around your shoulder? Are you cold? Do you need my jacket? – Yes ← consent given, keep going.
c) Further consent required: – Can I kiss you? Can I touch your knee? – YES! ← consent given, keep going.
d) Further consent required: Woman creaming, man on 3 legs. – Wanna go back to my place? Can I take off your shirt? Bra? Panties? – Yes ← EUREKA, keep going..!
e) Further consent required: – Can we UNS UNS DAGA DAGA GLUG GLUG SPRIZZZ AAAAHHHH? – Yes ← volcano erupts, Hiroshima, il grande vesuvio, cigarette, sleep
BUT!!!!!!
a) + b) + c) + d) + e) IS NOT VALID AS “CONSENT GIVEN”, IF JILL said YES but CLAIMS she IS “UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.”
This means that the ONE drink John bought Jill in the club, which he OFFERED and she ACCEPTED, has potentially turned John into a RAPIST!! A rapist who will be accused and arrested!
So, this rule makes me think about what the story is with women and sexuality these days? What’s happening?
When perspective is everything
I went to the Valley for Friday after work drinks, rollerblading.
Some young good-looking girls were walking across the street. They must’ve been about 25ish, silicone valley girls, boobs stuck to their dresses so they don’t fall out, those stupid shoes with the high thin heels and so much makeup you can’t see their face anymore.
But who cares, big silicone boobs have biological magnetic powers for our eyes anyway.
They enjoyed the attention of being looked at as I rolled past, smiled and kept going with snobby confidence.
30m down the road some old homeless guy must’ve looked at them and they made fun of him, laughed at him and called him a “dirty old man”.
So what does this mean? Women dress sexy, half naked walking the streets → they get offended if the male that looks at them is not an ethnic Greek-god-like rollerblader, but some poor old guy, maybe a homeless alcoholic who had a glance? What do the fascist want?
Constraints on any expression of male sexuality to be governed by Pauline Hansons? Will they legislate against unwanted attention from unwanted physical specimens? Whilst wanted sexual attention is perfectly fine? So if Enrique Iglesias looks at them it’s fine, but if Albert Einstein looks it’s not permitted?
What is consent these days?
And what is this consent bullshit?
Don’t get me wrong – a NO unequivocally means NO.
But what does a yes mean? When do you fully say YES? What does that even mean to fully say yes?
Turns out that saying yes to a sexual encounter is nuclear physics to interpret for a man.
…simply because NO MEANS NO!
Should we make a contractual consent? Do we need a legal document signed before we have a root so that you can be sure? Come to think of it, this sounds a bit like Islam and Christianity… Maybe you Pauline Hansons are very religious?
And isn’t every sexual desire between men and women to be dealt with case by case? Or will you make a general rule that yes means no, if there is a certain amount of alcohol involved?
And if the guy doesn’t call you the next day? Out of anger, a woman might claim rape and so he goes to jail, loses his job and any opportunities in the future?
I am a very strong advocate for sexual resolution of women to be necessary, simply because NO MEANS NO! But YES MEANS YES, just as no means no. Accusations against men are made and exploited by the fascist regime!
Like that time when a Mizzou official was questioned regarding a case where a black male Ph.D. candidate at the school asked out a white female fitness trainer and she bizarrely suggested that the fact that the male student was larger than the female student gave him “power over her” and violated school policy.
Birth control controlling minds?
Sexual preconceptions have been completely changed by birth control (especially the pill) and the fascists now believe that this had made sex non-consequential.
They are so naïve as to believe they will not be jealous if they are girl #4 for the guy they’re sleeping with! What a joke!
They believe they can look at sex only as a matter of physical pleasure, and can be dispensed with as if nothing ever happened, hence no emotional attachments.
These women will be mothers to daughters? Is this what we want sex to be for the women of the future? Do we want to have children with women like this? Do we want these women to be mothers of our children?
Well don’t worry guys, as much as Paulines think they are top shit, all sex is consequential, because Pauline would not be happy if you chop her and then her sister the next day. Believe me.
Jealousy, attachment etc… are human emotions, and unfortunately Fascists are humans too (that’s why we can’t put them in cages).
There is a staggering push for sexual liberation by fascists so that anything goes at any time, but when they realise they’re playing with fire, they call sexual assault…
…and they can, because they came up with legislation that “consent isn’t obvious.”
But why isn’t consent given by the acts in the constraints of the situation?! NO MEANS NO – That’s the only rule that is clear!
Why do you think some of those poor sad women have so many partners? From a psychological perspective it is very obvious that they want to feel that they are desired, because they aren’t happy with themselves.
This proves that physical intimacy cannot be divorced from psychological intimacy…
They buy those expensive clothes, stupid shoes and decoration rat dogs thinking they are more desired and beautiful. And then? If they don’t like the person that desires them, or they have regrets for their own actions, they abuse a legislation that they created!
This proves that physical intimacy cannot be divorced from psychological intimacy, which is why this legislation can eat shit.
Sex as a currency?
We will not let sex be a currency that has become devalued by fascism, and used as a weapon against men. If the Paulines weren’t self-obsessed SS troops, they would realise that the bare mechanics of the act of sex doesn’t change from person to person (multiple partners), but it is the psychological connection to the person that regulates the quality of the sex.
I must admit it’s much more difficult to plug a wall into a charger than it is to plug a charger into a wall…
The idea that men hold sexual power over women is complete bullshit.
A few serial sex offenders are in no way representative of the majority of men.
Who are the most raped people in the western world?
MEN!
MEN in prison raped by other MEN!
Hence the sexual power men hold are exercised by BAD HUMANS in complete power-abuse situations – not gender degrading purposes.
Women cannot be accused of rape? I must admit it’s much more difficult to plug a wall into a charger than it is to plug a charger into a wall, but giving consent to a man, and than accusing him of rape is just as bad (if not worse) than the act of rape itself! And fascists exploiting this should be reprimanded and punished as severely as possible.
The End… for now.
Trying to end this article on a funny note is a bit more difficult than the last one, but not all articles need to end in a funny way.
Feminism isn’t funny. Just as masculinism doesn’t exist, feminism shouldn’t either.
And if you think that masculism has existed and still does read my last article, and get educated.
In some respects, it does exist in Saudi Arabia (not in the west)… And yes, maybe it did exist in the west, but not in a way as drastic as you all imagine.
Women couldn’t leave the house for 1 week a month before 1920 (invention of tampons/pads), making them must less employable by that one simple fact… and there are 100,000+ facts which are not FAULTS OF MEN.
Today, power is intelligence, intelligence is spread equally in both genders (yes there are only 2 genders). Hence power is no longer held by muscle/swords/land. All the problems of the past, are NOT OUR FAULTS.
Men stand together, but not as men against women, but as men and women against FASCISTS.
SMRT FASIZMU, SLOBODA NARODU! Death to fascism, Freedom to the nation!
Anonymous.
Comments