The Invisible Suffering of the Codependent Man

Prostitution is legal when it is called “adult entertainment,” “escort services” or “marriage.”

Brutally honest prostitution was exiled by vainglorious social justice warriors with suspiciously clean white armor. But it was honesty that was exiled, not prostitution.

Prostitution 2.0 (“P2” for brevity) uses lies and addiction to increase profits from private webcam shows, pornography, diamonds and Valentine’s Day merchandise. Sex sales have been liquidated and reinvested in selling prospects of affection.  You don’t have to sell sex when you could sell a lap dance or three hours where you pretend to be a girlfriend. There is no better indication of how lonely we must be than the profit margins for suppliers of prepackaged love. That is a clear indication that affection is in demand, but there is a shortage.

P2 vendors would not be sitting on a pile of cash if men felt loved.

If a man could buy sex or feel respected by women, he would feel no inclination to fall into the sophisticated machinery ready to consume him.

The pus-lubed web of lies woven by P2 make life worse by performing two functions:

  • To facilitate courtship between codependents and narcissists.
  • To encourage male codependency and female narcissism.

Although the above functions are unintentional, they are observable characteristics that emerged from private sector operations.

For the unaware, codependency is a psychological condition characterized by an obsessive preoccupation with others, often to the expense of one’s own self. Narcissism is an obsessive preoccupation with one’s own self, often to the expense of others. Codependents and narcissists are naturally attracted to one another, and have a relationship comparable to a tick and a lemming.

Yes, there are cases in which a narcissistic man harms a codependent woman, and these cases are exactly as sad. However, these cases are not developed by gynocentric mainstream marketing influences that actively encourage a specific codependent-narcissist configuration.

Marketing is not geared toward what she can do for him, but rather what he can do for her. Remember, every kiss begins with Kay and you should say that with flowers. She won’t love you unless you have Axe body spray (yuck), dandruff shampoo, flowers, candy, cards, jewelry and the head of a dragon you’ve slain.

Even feminists belching about socialization must admit that men are told to buy affection.

When an emotionally healthy woman is perpetually given gifts and unwarranted affection as the primary consumer, she will learn to expect the Disney princess life. When an emotionally healthy man is competing in a buyer’s market for cock, he learns to treat himself like a product first and a human being second. PUAs profit from the insecurities that understandably incubate in these men, which means even confidence is a commodity as opposed to something you develop with experience.

Both men and women learn to be manipulative to get a slice of their respective pies, and the manipulation tactics are comparable to those of codependents and narcissists. Codependents appear altruistic, loving and kind, but are often simply buying friendship in a desperate attempt to avoid facing the curdled puddle of piss that is their self-esteem. Narcissists (who are self-loathing in a different way) act as enticing Venus flytraps, so codependents only realize how royally fucked they are once they see escape is not simply a matter of buzzing off.

Since buying sex is illegal in most jurisdictions and asking for sex may prompt a witch hunt, a man’s basic emotional and physical needs are turned into addictive commodities that provide the illusion of sexual contact and social acceptance during masturbation.

Cough syrup for an eternal cold.

Is it any wonder why the stereotype of the horny heterosexual man developed? A man’s natural libido has been amplified by a view that sex is the ultimate form of approval, and approval is the Holy Grail for codependents. While feminists screech about acceptance and inclusion,  they ignore the men who are desperate for both.

Because we live in a culture of “yes might maybe mean no but perhaps not,” actually having sex has become the primary and least ambiguous means to feel accepted. However, the process leading up to sex is a dangerous, maddening journey fraught with peril, confusion and possibly court summons. Any insecure man preoccupied with sex is not interested in merely sex, he is desperate to break out of a downward spiral of crippling loneliness beaten into his skull.

Sex emotionally completes the codependent Western male. Sadly, his passivity prohibits him from articulating his multifaceted torment brought on by a judgmental consumer culture. This is especially so in the face of an angry woman with an audience. Any reactionary fearful blubbering on the part of a man cast into the spotlight (especially on TV) is cast as stupidity and misogyny. Other men who as desperate as he is will join in on heckling him, all in the name of seeking acceptance and perhaps sex from their chosen goddess. Men will actually assist narcissistic women in stripping a dazed and confused man of his identity and dignity, probably before he had a chance to even develop either in a hostile environment that stunts said development.

Men, as the cult-urally designated codependent, deserve sympathy, but also criticism for funding their own turmoil. Men cast their own cocks as worthless, and narcissists-in-training happily agree while sucking the raspberry center out from a heart-shaped chocolate.

Breaking codependent habits is a slow, difficult process that involves unraveling a complex neural network that literally programs a man to be self-destructive in the name of “love.” This cannot change quickly, but it can change. 

Women have every choice to use prospects of sex to introduce ambiguity and emotional hazards for their own benefit, and may even cast innocent flirting as rape, criticism as verbal abuse, and compliments as insults. If more women made the choice to treat men like human beings (even in rejection), fewer men would sink deeper into their internal void.

What can be done to create a society of healthy reciprocal relationships between mutually compassionate partners?

Unfortunately, we cannot directly control a psychologically unprepared culture. There are too many interrelated factors at work. The only reliable escape is the realization that the game is rigged.

This is why MGTOWs and MHRAs will change the world without casting a single vote in a ballot or spending any money.

The system cannot handle a man who says “no.”

KSUM—Georgia on my mind

This article has been reprinted without modification here with permission from the author, AVfM Canadian News Director Dan Perrins. You can view the original on A Voice for Men.

A couple weeks ago, AVfM’s very own Director of Collegiate Activism and president of Kennesaw State University Men (KSUM), Sage Gerard, held the first men’s human rights conference, Male Students in Peril, on the campus of his school, Kennesaw State University.

I attended not only because of my responsibility as the Canadian News Director for AVfM but also because I’m a veteran of some of the worst feminist-indoctrinaught attacks/protests at events that discuss issues facing men and boys and criticize feminism. So I have experience in dealing with the possible nastiness dished out by feminists at these events.

There were a few things about the conference that stood out for me.

First, let me say I have respect for the KSU YESbody! positive-protest group and other feminists who attended Male Students in Peril. I may not agree with their feminist-lens view, which I consider to be askew, but I will compliment them on how they conducted themselves.

It will be this ability to show respect for differing points of view (which I hope they will continue to exhibit) that will facilitate open, honest dialogue and will thus bring about equitable solutions.

On one of my trips to the mic during the speakers’ Q&A periods, I brought up a quote by Walt Whitman, from the preface of Leaves of Grass:

Re-examine all you have been told … dismiss whatever insults your own soul.

(I realize that we have atheists in the community, so we can substitute “conscience” for “soul,” with all due respect to Whitman.)

I urge all of you to take that quote to heart and apply it when claims are made in gender-politics discussions—especially since, just like regular politics, there is a vast amount of profit to be made in gender politics. Sometimes that profit comes in the form of money, sometimes it comes in the form of silencing open, honest discussion. The KSU YESbody! group is familiar with feminist lies for profit, as was illustrated in their apology to Sage.

I’ve also got respect for their ability to admit when they are wrong.

I understand their concern that the conference speakers spent a lot of time criticizing feminism; however, feminism has a lot to answer for. And for those of you willing to re-examine what you’ve been told about feminism, I am about to present to you some very damning evidence of its wrongdoings. I’m going to incorporate events and evidence from both the university environment and society in general.

Let’s start with the university environment. I regularly attend talks given by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) in Canada, specifically at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In November 2012, when I was just another voice in the growing crowd of individuals exposing the misandry in feminism, CAFE hosted a talk by Dr. Warren Farrell, a former chapter head of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Dr. Farrell is one of the most reasonable and soft-spoken individuals I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting, and yet without ever having talked to him, the feminists at the University of Toronto felt the need to prejudge him, protest, and not engage in open dialogue. Their answer to his presence on campus was to commit illegal, life-endangering acts such as blocking fire exit doors and becoming assaultive toward event attendees and security and police alike. There are two videos illustrating my claims that I would like you to pay attention to. The first is by Studio Brulé, and the second is mine, building upon Brulé’s exceptional camerawork.

(Note: This video combines footage of Ashleigh Ingles from two separate events.)

My next experience with feminist protestors occurred when Dr. Janice Fiamengo spoke at the University of Toronto in March 2013. Likely most KSUM conference attendees will recognize Fiamengo’s name, as she was one of the key speakers last weekend.

I want you to pay attention to their attempts to silence non-feminist views via intimidation. At one point in the video you’ll see the feminists trying to intimidate me by taking my picture. My response is, as you can see, non-violent, and I offered them my card. You may also notice how another of the protestors tried to intimidate me by waving their sign around mere inches from my face.

Both attempts failed miserably. They obviously had no idea who I was, most likely due to the fact that they had been lied to by their feminist women studies and gender studies instructors. They also pulled the fire alarm at this event, needlessly putting lives at risk while engaging in a criminal act.

Some of you will profess that these examples are “not my feminism”; however, these are not isolated incidents. At an April 2013 lecture given by Drs Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young also at the University of Toronto, I experienced this charming feminist commonly known as “Big Red.” Big Red was heralded as a feminist champion for laughing and mocking male suicides, and in true feminist fashion when I highlighted Red’s cretinous behavior I was accused of being a mahhhsawjuhhhnistic monster. All because I faced off against this deplorable individual who laughed at male suicide, which became a very real issue for my family 32 years ago when my brother killed himself.

One would think feminists would toss this cretin to the curb and move on, but they didn’t. They portrayed her as a martyr, daring to speak to a man. Another unsubstantiated feminist lie.

Red is actually a MHRM hero in that her monstrous behavior drove people away from feminism.

And again the feminists put lives needlessly at risk when they broke the law and pulled the fire alarm for no valid reason.

Next on my playlist of feminist experiences is a group I dubbed “Darwin’s Rejects,” out in full force in August 2014 to protest another CAFE speaker at the University of Toronto, Igor Serebryany, a reporter, columnist, editor, and a former producer of BBC World Service who was presenting issues men and children face in Russian courts. Sure, this crowd seems like intelligent individuals, but looks can be deceiving.

I labeled them Darwin’s Rejects because they were left behind by the evolution of rational, open, evidence-based debate/discussion. They were so proud of their feminism while protesting but quickly scurried like cockroaches after the light of truth was shone upon them.

With that, I’m going to close the university environment experiences I’ve had—they’re not the only ones, but they do represent a fair sampling of what is happening here in Canada.

To address events off-campus and out there in society at large, I have a few other videos showing irrefutable evidence regarding the misandric corruption either done by or at the behest of feminism in Canada.

First, we have four videos by a group in Canada’s capital, Ottawa. In 2012, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women put out a 54-page document in which they erased all evidence of male victims of relationship violence. They took the total number of victims and claimed they were all women. Not once, but twice.

Now, some of you may say, “Well, that was just one group.” I counter that with the fact that Professor Holly Johnson, who helped advise and edit the paper, is considered a statistical expert by the University of Ottawa and actually wrote the Statistics Canada report on violence against women in 2006. So her not catching the glaring mistakes found in these videos is unforgivable; after all, she allegedly TEACHES this stuff. Still, let’s say that Professor Johnson was ill for the three or four months it took to put this paper together. What about the other two professors involved (Professors Jen Fraser and Rena Bivens)? Where were their heads at? Lastly, let’s not ignore the fact that the author of this piece of indoctrinaught birdcage liner was a Ph.D. candidate studying under Johnson. The glaring and multiple mistakes should never have made it past first reading, but they did. Were they deliberate, perhaps?

Next up, how about my local police force inflating numbers? Not possible, right? Well, after I pointed out their inflated numbers, they pulled their fraudulent paper off of their website.

And last but not least, we have the sexist, bigoted White Ribbon folks (not to be confused with WhiteRibbon.org, which seeks to End All Domestic Violence). Again, here we have irrefutable evidence of a feminist organization inflating numbers and ignoring male victims for profit.

All of this evidence is widely known by the non-/anti-feminist community, and any attempts to have these feminists held accountable for their actions—either by their peers in the feminist community or by the legal system when laws were actually broken—has been ignored.

Feminism owns every single bit of these deplorable actions. It also owns the negligent/criminal behavior engaged in and promoted by feminism.

As I mentioned, many of the feminists in attendance at the KSUM conference expressed anger at the criticism aimed at feminism by the conference speakers. Although the speakers were all well aware of the deplorable actions of feminists (some of which I illustrated above, but the list does go on …), the feminist attendees were unaware of all this back story, mainly because it’s been hidden from I’d say about 85% of those who identify as feminists.

But it hasn’t been hidden from Sage Gerard, the KSUM speakers, or the MHRM community. This is what feminism owns. This is what feminism has done. And this is what feminism will continue to do unless it is relegated to the trash bin of history and all humans come together in an egalitarian movement.

That movement is the MHRM. We don’t have an ideology; unlike feminism, we base our findings and positions on evidence, not feelings.

In closing, let me remind you again about ol’ Walt’s wise words:

Re-examine all you have been told … dismiss whatever insults your own soul.

I took Whitman’s words to heart and found that feminism insulted my soul.

Will you?