Science geeks invent pill to get women to have sex with Beta-males

And this pill has been known colloquially for decades as “the Pill.”  CNN’s resident PIV-positive mansplainer Ian Kerner reports that the results of a recent study published in Scientific American reveal that many women who were on the hormonal birth control pill while choosing their mate, and then went off the Pill after getting married, woke up one day to realize they were sleeping next to a giant dork.  And the women weren’t happy about it.

From the article:

[…] women with lower testosterone levels – typically caused by the use of hormone-based oral contraceptives like the pill – are more attracted to men who also have low testosterone levels.

Previous studies have shown that the less testosterone a man has, the less likely he is to cheat, the more supportive he is, and the better he is at providing for his family. Sounds good, right?

Not quite. Previous studies have also shown that most women are historically more sexually attracted to higher testosterone levels. And the mothers in the study who eventually went off birth control post-wedding reported less sexual contentment than other women; they found their husbands less attractive and less sexually exciting once they went off the pill.

Dr. Craig Roberts of Stirling University questioned more than 2,500 women from around the world for his research. Did their taste in men shift? Or did their birth control have a “love-potion” type of effect?

By “love potion” do you actually mean a pharmaceutically-induced altered reality that makes women willing to fuck men they normally wouldn’t?  Sounds like rape to me, Mr. Kerner.  But apparently since so many women are being raped this way, it’s become completely normalized and doesn’t count as rape, even though it is.  Just like every other instance of PIV on the planet that happens under dubious or coercive circumstances, which are also rape, but are alternatively known as “just regular normal everyday sex, nope nothing to see here, move along.”

Dr. Roberts, who performed the study, even advises that

women who met their partner while taking hormonal birth control should consider switching to another method several months in advance of tying the knot in order to assess whether their feelings for their partner will change or stay the same.

Women’s perception is so drastically altered by the Pill that they are in danger of marrying a man to whom they would not ordinarily even give the time of day, if they hadn’t been drugged for years by a reality-altering pharmaceutical that makes women fuck and — unsurprisingly, considering the potential for and reality of trauma-bonding from all instances of PIV — fall “in love” with Beta-males.

Mr. Kerner’s favorite handmaiden of the patriarchy, Dr. Madeleine Castellanos who wrote a book about “all things penis” even adds regarding the Pill and hormonal contraceptives that “some of these side effects are so serious that I now urge young women to consider just using condoms and leaving the birth control pills behind.”   That’s coming from a woman who is about as dick-pleasing and male-centered as one can possibly get.  If you aren’t extremely concerned yet, you should be.

Problematically, Mansplainer Kerner concludes in the face of these findings that

for those women who do choose to stay on the pill, the study offers a silver lining: the women on the pill were happier overall in their relationships and more likely to stay together than their non-pill-taking counterparts. The benefits of the non-sexual aspects of the relationship outweighed any sexual downsides.

So perhaps it’s better to be evenly matched at the low-testosterone end of the spectrum (with a man who is more likely to be faithful) than potentially mismatched.

Yes that’s a silver lining alright: there’s a pill women can take to make partnering with men more tolerable.  And women taking a pill to make partnering with men more tolerable, even if it’s a dangerous drug with known side-effects that can kill you, is better than the alternative; in Kerner’s mind, the “alternative” obviously being “partnering with an Alpha male who might have better genes but who will treat you even worse, being more prone to violence and more likely to infect you with disease.” It’s a lesser of two evils: men and male violence and male abuse/neglect within the context of the het partnership being the “evil” of course, but Kerner never says it.

Unsurprisingly, CNN’s resident mansplainer does not conclude that women partnering with any man, whether Alpha or Beta, is neither necessary nor advisable, and that there are alternatives.  It’s a false choice, and the one that includes women taking drugs to cope is presented as the better of the two.  The scary thing is that it just might be, if you believe those are the only options.  The truth, of course, is that they aren’t the only options.  And women having to be medicated to survive in (men’s) reality is pretty solid evidence that this thing we know as “reality” is really men’s reality, and male-centric social engineering, no more and no less.

Suggest for one second that men be medicated to make them easier to control, however, and more than a few people get their panties in a bunch: social engineering — including medical interventions — is how we control women under patriarchy, not men.  And not a single allegedly “rational” or egalitarian-minded person seems to have much of a problem with that, at all.

Advertisements

Transgender contestant to compete in Miss Universe pageant afterall

A transgender woman who has has been fighting for her right to internalize misogyny by competing in a beauty pageant has gotten what she wanted, reports CNN.  While she was initially disqualified by the organizers of Miss Universe Canada because she was not a “natural born woman” and because she had lied about having had sex-reassignment surgery, pageant organizers Monday reversed their decision and will now allow male-to-female transgender model Jenna Talackova to compete.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, commended the pageant organizer’s decision.

The 61st annual Miss Universe Canada Pageant will be held in Toronto on May 19.

From the article:

Speaking to CNN Tuesday, [owner Donald] Trump said that according to the laws of Canada and the United States, Talackova should be allowed to enter the pageant.

‘So she will be entering the Miss Canada pageant, but we went strictly by the laws,’ he said.

[…]

Talackova was one of the 65 finalists selected to contend for the title of Miss Universe Canada and the honor of representing her country in the Miss Universe competition.

But organizers told her last month she could not compete because she lied about having undergone sexual reassignment surgery and did not meet requirements for the pageant.

At the time, the Miss Universe Organization said current rules state that all contestants must be a “naturally born female.”

In a 2010 interview in Thailand, where she was competing for Miss International Queen, a competition for transgender women, Talackova said she knew she was a girl at age 4. She said she started hormone therapy at age 14 and underwent sexual reassignment surgery at 19.

After Talackova’s disqualification, social media users flooded the Facebook page of Miss Universe Canada with comments criticizing the decision.

A petition started on the social change website Change.org garnered more than 41,000 signatures calling for organizers to reverse their ruling.

So let us take inventory here shall we?  41,000 people have been motivated to action, supporting a male-to-female transgender who wants to compete with real women over who is the most male-pleasing; said male-to-female transgender gets feminist attorney Gloria Allred to help him fight for his right to internalize misogyny and be the bestest male-pleaser; and GLAAD — an organization that supposedly represents lesbians’ interests but lately doesn’t even return lesbians’ phone calls  — commends the organizers’ decision to allow a male-to-female transgender to internalize misogyny because justice, just weeks after GLAAD also “worked closely with” and published the work of male-to-female transgender Monica Roberts, who heralded progressive political transgender “trailblazers” on GLAAD’s website even though Monica Roberts himself has threatened to “pimp slap” women; refers to women as “fish” and has made public, graphic death threats against a lesbian activist.

Does that sound about right?  I think so, except for one thing:

Men cannot internalize misogyny, any more than a white man can internalize racism.  Men externalize misogyny and use it to oppress women.  Men externalizing misogyny is the context we are working within here and everywhere.  And transwomen are not women, they are men.

So what we have here are a bunch of allegedly woman, lesbian and feminist-friendly activists getting their panties in a bunch over whether a man will be allowed to exercise his alleged right to externalize misogyny by competing in a beauty pageant; and conservative gender religionist pageant organizers who apparently believe very strongly that competing for the title of Bestest Man-Pleaser is a privilege reserved for natural-born women (and non-lying-liars) but who caved under global political pressure and social networking campaigning from other conservative gender-religionists, deciding to ignore their own rules and letting a man do his best imitation of a male-pleasing woman, afterall.

And as if that weren’t enough, the transgender contestant also appears to be competing in pageants — and is eligible to compete — as both a woman (in Miss Universe) and as a transgender woman (in Miss International Queen) when an actual woman would never be able to compete in both.  And yet he claims that he doesn’t want special treatment.  And that he just wants to compete [in ALL TEH PAJUNTS!!1!!1]

The punchline: this is all apparently supposed to be both progressive, and feminist.  Thanks for nothing everyone!  Love, actual feminists.

Baltimore Sun repeatedly misleads in reporting on child-rape

Today, the Baltimore Sun reports that a 31-year old Washington man has been arrested in Maryland after “pimping out” a 15-year old girl.  The girl had apparently gone missing from her Virginia home last September, and had been used as a “prostitute” between September 2011 and February 2012.  However, because the girl was a minor under the age of consent in Maryland, which is generally 16, even if he wasn’t pimping her out, anyone having intercourse with her (unless the perpetrator was less than 4 years older than she was) would still be guilty of a sexual offense.  In effect, regardless of any additional crime related to prostituting or soliciting prostituted women, intercourse in this context would be rape, not sex.

So, what the Baltimore Sun is really saying here is that in its estimation, prostitution is prostitution is prostitution, whether it is the commodification of “sex” or the commodification of rape, or child-rape.  Which implies, doesn’t it, that there is also no difference between (uncommodified, regular) sex and rape, and between sex and child-rape.  Implicit in their treatment of the issue, the Baltimore Sun and its employees reveal their belief that sex and rape are the same thing.  Which would lead one to question, does the Sun think that both sex and rape are bad?  Or does it think that sex and rape, being indistinguishable from each other, are both good?

And throughout the publication, the Sun repeatedly makes its belief that sex and rape are the same thing clear.  Recently, the Sun reported that a 26-year old man was arrested for attempting to solicit a 14-year old girl for “sex.”  What the facts seem to indicate, however, is that the man was attempting to lure the girl via Facebook so that he could rape her, because a girl of 14 cannot legally consent to “sex” with a 26-year old man in the state of Maryland.  The man wanted rape, not sex.  But again, the Sun uses the headline “Police charge Parkton man for soliciting underage girl for sex” when they could’ve just as easily used the legal term for what this man attempted to do: he was charged with sexual solicitation of a minor and an attempted sex offense.  Of course, even the legal terms here are essentially weasel words meaning sexualized violence, including degrees of rape, but the Sun wasn’t satisfied with mere legal weaseling; it needed to weasel more.  Why, one might wonder, does the Baltimore Sun seem so intent on minimizing men’s sexual violence against young girls?

And again, just today, the Sun uses the headline “Baltimore jury convicts child sex offender,” referring to a man who “repeatedly attacked” a 10-year old girl.  Sex?  Really?  Interestingly, according to the Sun article, that jury actually convicted the man of child sexual abuse, another euphemism for sexualized violence of course, but the Sun decided to report that the man was an “offender” instead of an “abuser.”  Why?  If it was going to choose a descriptor that differed from the official legal one, why did it choose “sex offender” instead of something else, like violent offender, violent criminal, sexual predator, danger to the community, pedophile, pervert, or something else?  Utilizing a derivative of “sexual offense” here makes it sound like the man farted in bed, when in reality, it appears as if he repeatedly sexually assaulted a 10-year old girl.  Why not just say it?  It’s not that hard.

Or it shouldn’t be that hard, unless the Sun has a written or unwritten editorial policy or corporate culture which makes it impossible for reporters and editors to accurately report on men’s sexual violence against young girls.  So what’s the deal with your biased reporting on child sexual abuse, Baltimore Sun?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Lesbian group issues press release condemning Toronto Planned Parenthood

Today, the Ad Hoc Coalition Against the Cotton Ceiling (the “Coalition”) issued a press release condemning Planned Parenthood, Toronto for its support of what the Coalition describes as a misogynistic, anti-woman, anti-lesbian sex workshop organized by transgender activists.  The workshop, called “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women” is part of a larger “Pleasure and Possibilities” conference scheduled to take place on March 31, 2012 at the Toronto Sherbourne Health Centre.

The “Cotton Ceiling” workshop is open to men and male-to-female transgenders only, and will facilitate discussion regarding “the experiences queer trans women have with simultaneous social inclusion and sexual exclusion within the broader queer women’s communities. Basically, […] that cis queer women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners.”

According to the program’s organizer, male-to-female transgender activist Morgan Page, the term “cotton ceiling” was first coined by male-to-female transgender porn star Drew Deveaux, and “is a reference to the ‘glass ceiling’ that second wave feminist identified in the workforce, wherein women could only advance so high in the workforce but could not break through into positions of power and authority. The cotton represents underwear, signifying sex.”

From the Coalition’s press release:

The Ad Hoc Coalition Against the Cotton Ceiling objects to any analogy between sex and the ‘glass ceiling’ as both politically and sexually inappropriate. Unlike women’s right to equal employment and professional credibility in the workplace, trans women are not entitled—individually or as a class— to have sex with ‘cis’ lesbians, as they call us.

‘Trans women’s access to lesbians as viable sexual partners should never be framed as a barrier to trans women’s sexual pleasure or to trans women’s equal participation in “queer women’s communities”,’ said Elizabeth Hungerford, a spokeswoman for the Coalition.

[…]

The Ad Hoc Coalition Against the Cotton Ceiling represents the 282 signers of the Petition asking PPT to reconsider the Cotton Ceiling workshop.  The Coalition rejects the notion put forth by PPT that the sexual orientation of lesbians towards other lesbians with female-born bodies harms queer trans women’s sexual health or well-being. We also reject the suggestion that some lesbians’ sexual boundaries exclude queer trans women from engaging as full members of LGBTQ communities. Sexual access is not an in-group entitlement; it is not required for community membership.

All branches of Planned Parenthood can serve their equality mandate without reinforcing the unreasonable expectation of some trans women that their community inclusion requires full sexual access to other community members—specifically singling out ‘cis’ lesbians to provide sexual validation. The idea that trans women are politically entitled to overcome a ‘Cotton Ceiling’ barrier maintained by ‘cis’ lesbians becomes particularly threatening when supported by the authority of an internationally renowned organization whose mission is to protect all women’s sexual and reproductive health.  Reference to any women’s cotton underwear as representative of a sexual or political barrier to be broken is sexually inappropriate and politically indefensible in this context.

The petition was started earlier this week, and appears to be still accepting signatures as of this printing.

Image from here.

Kim Kardashian attacked by animal rights extremist after ‘asking nicely’ didn’t work

Animal rights extremists call it “flour bombing” and gender extremists call it “glitter bombing” but really it’s all the same thing: violent misogynists attacking women who refuse to do what they’re told when first asked nicely by violent misogynists.  Just in case there was ever any question that there are violence and threats of violence backing up the pretend “niceness” of violent misogynists, well, now there’s not.

The Washington Post reports:

Kardashian was celebrating the launch of her new perfume True Reflection at an event to benefit the charity Dress for Success.

As video from E! News shows, a woman walked up to Kardashian, yelled what sounded like “Lousy fur hag” and “flour bombed” the reality star.

Kardashian has been photographed wearing fur at public events many times, most recently at Kanye West’s Paris fashion show. In November, PETA placed a billboard in West Hollywood showing Kardashian in a fur vest next to a picture of live foxes with the words, “The babies miss their mother. Is she on your back?”

There is always, always violence backing up misogynist extremists’ — and their handmaidens’ — demands on women, and women know this.  “Asking nicely” is just a thin cover for abusers who, in reality, are coercing and intimidating women to bend to the abusers’ wills, and when they don’t do what they are told, violence ensues.  This happens all the damn time.  And in the wake of the violence, the abusers get to frame the issues and call it whatever they like, including minimizing it and justifying it — they are abusers afterall, and this is straight out of the abusers’ handbook.  It’s even more of a spectacle when organizations don’t formally orchestrate the violence, but then roll around in it afterwards like pigs rolling — gleefully — in shit:

A rep for PETA told [news outlet] TMZ the organization was not involved in the flour attack: “We were given the video by an anti-fur activist on the scene.”

The rep continued, “PETA has tried everything from polite letters to public protests, but Kim Kardashian has not been moved by the news that animals are beaten, electrocuted, and even skinned alive for real fur garments. Whoever threw that flour may reach her when our polite appeals did not.”

Yes, you attempted to merely intimidate and coerce her, whilst maintaining your false image as nonviolent non-abusers, and when the intimidation and coercion didn’t work, out comes the violence.  And piggish shit-rolling!  We get it.

What would the world look like if women stopped bending to abusers’ wills in fear of the ever-present threats of violence that back these assholes up?  One shudders to think, but it would be a lot more honest than what we have now, if also a lot more bloody.  Interestingly, unlike now, the blood would run in both directions — self-defense anyone?

But one thing’s for certain: if women consistently stood their ground in the face of pretend “niceness” from violent thugs, some things that are currently lurking just below the surface, in the realm of lies, obfuscations, denial, and half-truths would quickly become very clear.  And men and misogynist extremists would (perhaps?) end up looking like the shit they are, to everyone, when right now they just look, sound, smell, taste, and feel like shit to everyone who is both paying attention, and cares.