Misogyny 101

[For an update, please see: Lemons to Lemonade Documentary – Ed]

Watch this disgusting video of a bunch of men laughing it up about breast and vaginal mutilation.

….Oh, wait!

[For an update, please see: Lemons to Lemonade Documentary – Ed]

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Paul on August 19, 2012 at 07:02

    Richard, what’s your take on circumcision?

    • Richard Nikoley on August 19, 2012 at 07:05

      I’m against it (unless someone chooses to have it done on themselves later), but it’s tough to quantify it as “mutilation” in the case of males because it’s so steeped in religious/cultural values—delusional to be sure, but it’s not malicious. I view female circumcision far worse because its explicit purpose is to make of her a baby factory that derives no sexual pleasure.

      • Tony on August 19, 2012 at 08:21

        From my research I believe the justifications offered for FGM are more complicated than just mere intent to deny sexual pleasure. It’s still evil, and challenging that view isn’t my point here. The problem with the argument that this fact of FGM distinguishes it from male circumcision is that it uses separate standards to judge parental action. (I don’t think you’re making this mistake.)

        According to the World Health Organization’s FGM fact sheet, the intent to cut is the only relevant consideration, not motive. They list reasons some parents offer for why, but it’s untied from denouncing the intent to act. “Do they intend to act?” is the only question.

        With male circumcision, we look beyond the intent to cut and look at ‘intent’ in the context of of motive. It’s not the same standard. “Why do they intend to act?” is the question we focus on. We blindly ignore the outcome (which I think clearly fits the definition of mutilation). Even though it’s easy to find examples of religious and non-religious people who declare that they cut males to hinder and/or control their sexuality, we just assume that away. We assume motive/intent to mean for “good” reasons, and excuse away the inevitable harm from taking a scalpel to healthy genitals. Mostly because it’s somehow wrong to question anything someone wants to do to someone else to please an unprovable man in the sky, which is ignorant.

      • CL on August 19, 2012 at 09:40

        Religious circumcision was traditionally not as radical as modern medical circumcision, which has a lasting impact for both men and women, and thus society as a whole. I would go so far as to call modern medical circumcision of boys mutilation.

      • Rip on August 19, 2012 at 11:06


  2. Monica Hughes on August 19, 2012 at 07:15

    Holy mother of god. I could only get to the 2 minute mark. I’m so glad I don’t have a TV.

    • Joe Bloom on August 19, 2012 at 07:28

      My sentiments exactly.

    • John on August 19, 2012 at 07:28

      I totally agree

    • Samantha Chesley on August 19, 2012 at 09:53

      Yeah, I couldn’t watch the whole thing, either. That’s pretty graphic.

      She is Ozzy Osbourne’s wife, though, so she probably thinks it’s normal to laugh at violence.

  3. Alex Saveski on August 19, 2012 at 07:39

    People have lost jobs in TV for less than that.

    • Monica Hughes on August 19, 2012 at 08:05

      WAY less than that. Very good point.

  4. Sean on August 19, 2012 at 08:02

    While I’m sure every one of these cackling hyenas knows the word misogyny and uses it on a regular basis, I doubt a single one could name the opposite–misandry. In fact my Firefox spell checker has only one word red-squiggled as I type, no extra points for guessing which one it is.

    • ladysadie1 on August 19, 2012 at 08:58

      Thanks for pointing out the proper word. What a bunch of evil bitches!

  5. Evonda on August 19, 2012 at 08:17

    I don’t know how anyone could have laughed at the situation. Whether it is male or female, genital mutilation is never funny. And if it had actually been men laughing at the mutilation of women I would not excuse it even if they “didn’t mean any harm”. In fact I would assume they didn’t care or didn’t take it seriously. Cutting off a man’s penis is horrible, not funny. I’m glad I don’t watch this show.

    • Sean on August 19, 2012 at 08:44

      Personally, I don’t have a problem with making fun of horrible things I think that it is sort of the point of humor. Is there a line somewhere? Yes, but it’s a moving line and it depends how things are approached.

      To say something is simply not funny and completely off limits, well, I’m not really comfortable with that.

      What I do have a real problem with are double standards and PC arbiters of taste. Rape isn’t funny, unless it is men getting raped in prison, ha ha. Genital mutilation isn’t funny, unless it’s a woman tossing her husbands cock down a garbage disposal because he wants a divorce, chortle chortle. I can laugh at 9/11 jokes. Doesn’t mean that wasn’t a horrific event.

      Not that these harpies are making jokes so much as showing naked, sadistic glee. But I don’t think these women ought to be censored or have to make a Stalinest mock-trial apology any more than Daniel Tosh for his rape joke.

      • Kate Ground on August 19, 2012 at 11:25

        Tosh is an idiot.

      • Sean on August 19, 2012 at 11:37

        Incredibly witty and intelligent comment, Kate. If only Tosh was around to take notes.

      • Kate Ground on August 19, 2012 at 15:35

        Just sayin’

      • Kate Ground on August 19, 2012 at 15:37

        Oh but so are most of the women in that horrible video. Although, notice, not all are laughing at Sharon.

      • Elliot on August 22, 2012 at 18:06

        I was similarly taken aback by Sarah Silverman making jokes about 9/11 or Louis Szekely (CK) making jokes about Palin’s Down Syndrome baby, but most of that is schtick and you either put up with the parts which bother you so you can laugh at the parts you do find funny, or you dismiss them out of hand and don’t watch them.

        Tosh.0 plays some hilarious videos from the interwebs and Daniel makes a few amusing skits. Of course, you have to put up with the gross ones. TEHO

      • Daniel on August 20, 2012 at 14:54

        My feelings also. Double standards and hipocrisy are horrible.

      • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2012 at 15:52

        “I think that it is sort of the point of humor.”

        Making fun of horrible things?

        How about condemn horrible things and make fun of funny or ironic things? Oh, yea, condemning the horrible requires a sense of the horrible which requires a modicum of principle, so let’s just be mindless and laugh at the horrible. …but oops, it’s not even horrible, really, because such judgment requires a modicum of a sense of principle.

      • noah on August 21, 2012 at 12:27


        The site is run by feminists. Guess what their problem are?!

        Thats right. Men sit down in a too masculine way. I wonder what would happen if I started to take secret photos of womens snatches in buses and posted them on a webpage.

  6. Joe on August 19, 2012 at 09:14

    Women buy most products & certainly most media, so men don’t count.

    Except as fall-guys, punch lines and moustache-twirling villains.

    How often have we seen men wrongly sent to prison (or almost sent) for decades, just so the girl didn’t have to admit to her parents that she fucked a boy she thought was attractive? All the time.

    How many times is the woman then prosecuted for this? NEVER. NEVER EVER. COULD NEVER HAPPEN. It’s a career-ending mistake for a prosecutor to expect women to obey the law rather than their feelings or expediency in the moment.

  7. Joe on August 19, 2012 at 09:42


    A woman:
    – Sleeps with the cute football player
    – falsely accuses him of rape
    – Gets him convicted
    – Sues the school district for three quarters of a million dollars and collects
    – After his release five years later, starts hitting on him on Facebook
    – Makes a lunch date with him where she admits on video that she won’t recant because she wants to keep the money
    – DA says they won’t prosecute because “THE CASE IS TOO HARD TO PROVE”

    I can’t imagine a stronger public policy imperative than prosecuting this woman (and every woman like her)


  8. Tree on August 19, 2012 at 09:42

    Can’t handle the shoe on the other foot?

    • Richard Nikoley on August 19, 2012 at 10:32

      Why do you lie like that?

      • Sean on August 19, 2012 at 11:49

        Remember when you were joking about cutting off clitorises (clitorii?) and using them as fish bait, Richard? Or should I say Angry Dick (cause dick is also a slang word for penis–total burn, dude). Well, now the tables are turned, and, uhm, karma, bitch!

        Stupid troll is stupid.

  9. rob on August 19, 2012 at 09:44

    I’m glad my parents had me cut cause I think it makes my dick look more attractive.

    • Morghan on August 19, 2012 at 21:19

      I’ve had nothing but compliments regarding my intact genitalia, and I’d rather she like my penis than have one I think looks better.

      • rob on August 20, 2012 at 04:41

        Well then, a toast to our respective penises!

        May they never fail us.

    • David on August 20, 2012 at 09:57

      That thought is oft put forward despite being a CLEAR path-of-least-resistence emotional conclusion. You’re free to believe what you like, but that’s not a worthwhile point.

      • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2012 at 10:54


        The question to ask is, “would you have had it done at 20 if your parents left the choice up to you?”

        My answer is a resounding Fuck No!

        I’ve talked to many women, many lovers, about this going way back and it’s a mix about what they find more attractive or, dare I say, “primal.” But to me, why be _other_ driven, even in the context of something so base? So long as there are plenty of women who have no problem with an uncut cock, why give babies plastic surgery first thing? Because if we’re talking attractiveness, we’re talking cosmetic surgery right out of the womb and I’ll take the old fashioned stance that such appearance enhancements ought to be left up to the person being enhanced.

        Comfort and well being with who one is naturally ought be something everyone has a chance to accept.

      • David on August 20, 2012 at 11:43

        Well put, and I agree entirely. My post was clumsily worded.

        It’s not productive for the circumcised to dwell on the long past, but to come out swinging in the opposite direction and claim to be GLAD to have been deprived of choice is transparently whacked.

      • rob on August 20, 2012 at 12:51

        Yeah, and I think you’re a dick.

      • Kate Ground on August 20, 2012 at 16:39

        From a female perspective….I much prefer an intact penis. It is designed to please the female, IMO. I left my son alone.

      • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2012 at 16:59

        Good for you, Kate. Thank you for taking the Red Pill on that score.

  10. Txomin on August 19, 2012 at 10:08

    Individuals only represent themselves, even if they are desperate to draw everyone in their delusional messes.

  11. Zell on August 19, 2012 at 12:28

    Ugh, I couldn’t make it to the 2-minute mark. It made me cringe and feel physically ill, not to mention eyes tearing up at the thought of the physical and psychological trauma for the man. Sick, sick, sick.

    My 14-year-old little sister eats and breathes this show, along with all the rest like it. It’s terrifying.

  12. Bernardo on August 19, 2012 at 12:32

    They hate the penis, don’t they? Freud explains it.

  13. Morghan on August 19, 2012 at 21:15

    I saw this the day after it happened and was part of the flood of demands that this not be allowed to stand. Of course all that happened was a piss-poor “apology” she couldn’t even get through without laughing.

    It’s not that what she said/did bothers me, it’s the horribly skewed standards for what is acceptable based entirely on the protected status the idiot in question has. Let straight white Christian males make tasteless and outright moronic jokes without it sparking a crusade against them and the rest are free to do the same, but someone without protected status has to watch what they say and do to keep it all P.C. so everyone else should have to tiptoe around us as much as we do around them.

  14. Kristina on August 20, 2012 at 09:22

    I have a hypothesis, and that’s that some fathers have their sons circumcised because they were circumcised, and so it continues. My fiance is circumcised, doesn’t feel psychologically damaged because of it, but decided a long time ago that he wants any sons we have to stay intact and that he’ll deal with explaining why Daddy’s is different when it comes up…. probably when they’re having a nice father-son bond peeing in snow or whatever it is you fellas do to entertain yourselves.

    I didn’t watch the video. I’m well aware of the double-standard in favor of women and I’m well aware of the stupidity of television… I also don’t want to have to physically wash my brain after exposure to daytime talk television.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2012 at 09:26

      Welcome to just another red pill blog, Kristina.

      You’re my demographic in so many ways. Love the snow peeing (or whatever) analogy. You understand a lot about As The World Turns.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2012 at 09:39

      Oh, and by the way, the reverse is also true. My dad and his 5 brothers are German immigrants and I believe none of them were cut. But I and my 3 younger brothers were. I believe, at the time, 60s, early 70s, it’s just what people did in America (someone mentioned it’s a medical procedure, now, not a religious ritual–the latter I have more sway in understanding for). I have no idea how it might or might not effect male sexuality. My guess is not much, because otherwise people would have “extincted” themselves. This is not a risk in female “circumcision” as sexual pleasure is not necessary for reproduction and in an abusively male dominant culture like Islam.

      I sat next to an Islamic, dimminutive female on the plane ride down to Austin. Not a Burkha, but the full head scarf, wrap under the chin deal (btw, not implying that anywhere near all Islamic women have had this procedure and I’d guess a small minority). She was a real soft spoken sweetheart and I went as far put of my way as I possibly could to demonstrate classic American male gentlemanliness to her, and counted myself luckily to be able to do so.

      • gallier2 on August 20, 2012 at 10:20

        Stop conflating Islam and genital mutilation. To take a nutritional analogy, they are correlated but not causaly linked. Look at that map of Africa
        that’s the area where female genital mutilations occur and look at that map of the repartition of Islam in the world. Look at Africa, a light correlation but nothing very strong.

        It would be like saying circumcision was a typical protestant thing because most Americans are both protestants and circumcised.
        fwiw to add a personal anecdote, of all the women I had intimate contact with, there were several muslims but none was mutilated and the only mutilated one I ever met, was a Christian from Cameroon.

        This said, while we’re at it with the circumcision anecdotes, the prevalence of it in the US vs the rest of Christian world, is again a legacy of the lunacies of the hygienist zealot John Harvey Kellog (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg ) who thought it was a good way to prevent masturbation. It was this same guy who invented corn flakes and low-fat veganism for nearly the same purposes.

      • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2012 at 13:30

        “Stop conflating Islam and genital mutilation.”

        “(btw, not implying that anywhere near all Islamic women have had this procedure and I’d guess a small minority)” Me, in the post you’re responding to.

        Stop fucking grandstanding when you have no basis in standing.

      • Joseph on August 20, 2012 at 10:20

        Much of modern medical procedure is functionally no different from religious practice. Why should I get a colonoscopy at some precise age (and not a moment before)? Why should my heart beat at a certain rate (that changes regularly as I “age” — guffaw!)? Why should I circumcise my sons? Why should I eat margarine (oops, I mean whatever hyped-up stuff they have fallen back on now that trans-fats are officially evil)? The clowns just redesign the same circus every few years.

        I remember when I was a kid and my dad (an MD) got in a real fight with my grandpa (his father-in-law) over whether or not my mom (who was pregnant?) should eat eggs. My dad, fresh out of med school, gave her the party line of the day (“eggs will raise your cholesterol and give you heart attacks!”) — which my grandpa (an industrial chemist) dismissed as hogwash (rightly, as we think now). They yelled and sweated, and we had to abandon our vacation early, which didn’t make me happy: I just wanted to play in the huge fields of my grandpa’s old plantation (which has since been sold to make an awful subdivision). Dumb grown-ups. I guess I still don’t see much point in giving oneself a coronary over whether we eat the eggs or don’t (or whatever). As long as you’re not shoving something down my throat, I’m happy.

      • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2012 at 14:01

        Joseph, the personal background to your point was engaging and added umph. Good job.

      • Ed on August 21, 2012 at 00:11

        I have no idea how it might or might not effect male sexuality.

        It changes it quite a lot.

        My guess is not much, because otherwise people would have ‘extincted’ themselves.

        No, because the modern form of circumcision (cutting off huge amounts of the penis) is only about a hundred years old.

        The ancient form of circumcision was very different from what was started after the “masturbation panic” of the late 19th century (courtesy of Dr. Kellogg, et al.) Kellogg’s procedure was intended to destroy male sexual pleasure (and thus remove the incentive to masturbate.) It was further intended to be done on unanesthetized teenagers (for maximum trauma), to ensure that they never touched themselves again.

        But the ancient form of circumcision was basically ceremonial. It required that only a single drop of blood be shed. It could be done with a pin, and there was no permanent change to the penis at all.

        But that was then; this is now. And if you cut off the hood of the penis, lots of things change:

        – no lubrication from the male

        – low sensation in the male, requiring far more motion during sex to achieve orgasm

        – completely different action maximizes pleasure in the cut male — action that is not compatible with maximizing female pleasure.

        Basically, to maximize his own pleasure, the circumcised male maximizes thrusting — long moves that dry out the female and produce lots of friction and banging, but leave the clitoris not particularly stimulated.

        – but the uncircumcised male maximizes his pleasure during sex completely differently. The uncut male gets maximizes his pleasure by rocking his hood back and forth minutely over the ridge of the glans in a very small range where the hood nerves are particularly dense. When he’s rocking back and forth over that range, the ridge of the glans, through his hood, forms a sliding bulge that pulses back and forth directly over — you guessed it — the woman’s clitoris. Yes, no matter how long or short the uncut male is (nor how selfish a lover), he will still line himself up in the exact place that maximizes her pleasure — accidentally — because that’s the exact range in which HIS pleasure is maximized.

        Ain’t evolution amazing? Kind of funny that Dr. Kellogg fucked it up two ways — first, by causing hundreds of millions of males to be maimed, and second, by making cereal the standard breakfast.

        Dr. Kellogg, I salute you. You fucking ENEMY OF HUMANITY.

        The truth is that “modern” circumcision is far closer to clitorectomy than anyone is admitting.

      • gallier2 on August 21, 2012 at 00:53


        There are other problems with a full circumcision you haven’t mentioned. Having been completely removed the foreskin doesn’t protect the glans anymore. The result of it is that the delicate skin of the glans because of friction in the underwear gets less and less sensitive. Masturbation also makes it less sensible and numb. Having then intercourse is difficult because it’s like wearing a leather condom. If I abstain from masturbating for a long time, I gain back the sensitivity but I pay it with small wounds at the base of the glans at the slightest friction because the skin then gets as thin as parchment.

        I’ve been opertated as a child of a phimosis which resultated in a full circumcision, an unnecessary procedure because in most cases phimosis resolves itself in puberty. If I could I would sue the asshole doctor who persuaded my parents to do the intervention, but te guy is probably already dead and that kind of operation is not common anymore anyway.

      • Ed on August 21, 2012 at 13:15

        Sorry about your experience, gallier2.

        If it helps, you can consider yourself an honorary American.

        But my guess is that might make it worse. :-)

      • gallier2 on August 21, 2012 at 14:00

        lol. At least it allowed me to become an honorary muslim when I “married” a my former wife. It had the advantage that I could get rid of her with a simple repudiation vow, no divorce law or anything was necessary.

      • Richard Nikoley on August 21, 2012 at 14:06

        There’s a national radio Doc here, don’t know if he’s still on, Dean Edell, an eye surgeon originally. He used to speak out about circumcision all the time. Mothers would call into the show worrying about foreskin retraction and his answer was always the same: leave it alone.

      • Ed on August 21, 2012 at 15:32

        Dean Edell is a gem. Wonderful, wonderful man.

        He actually did a couple of reports on my late father (also a surgeon) many years ago.

        Dr. Edell is one of the good guys.

      • Kate Ground on August 21, 2012 at 16:00

        Yes he is a no bullshit doctor. Frickin’ doctors are so quick to do circumcisions, episiotomies, C-sections, appendectomies, toncilectomies, etc. when, for the most part, they are not necessary. It takes looking at death’s door to get me to go to a doctor.
        Leave the poor little baby penises alone !

      • Kate Ground on August 21, 2012 at 05:47

        Thank you for clarifying for everyone. In our “primitive” society it is more important that he looks like everyone else in the gym locker room, then whether he and his mate enjoy sex, or more importantly, his penis is healthier.

      • Richard Nikoley on August 21, 2012 at 06:31


        Thanks for the explanation. It would be interesting to hear the perspective of females who’ve had both, particularly in the context of your comments.

        I do find it a bit curious that I don’t recall ever hearing anything substantial in this area from females other than the “size maters” issue. So I wonder if size is more of a determinate for pleasure and washes out any difference between cut and uncut. Though, I have heard from women also about size being too big for them, so perhaps there’s an ideal length range.

  15. JLL on August 21, 2012 at 09:01

    What a bunch of cunts.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 21, 2012 at 09:49


      You can’t say that, you know. Nothing ever justifies it ever. It’s non-sequitur in any context.

  16. […] who in case you don’t know is a misogynist, was a damn hard worker. I didn’t tell him what I was going to do to everyone else, […]

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.