The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminism: Equality in Misery

Posted on | December 28, 2014 | 142 Comments

Miriam Mogilevsky (@sondosia) is allegedly a human being, although manifestly lacking in empathy and filled with a hateful appetite for sadistic revenge, which is to say she is a feminist. Her numerous efforts to destroy civilization include her advocacy of atheism, because those who hate humanity usually begin by hating God. She developed advanced skills in intellectual perversion at Northwestern University and is now working on her master’s degree in spiteful evil at Columbia.

If my description of Ms. Mogilevsky seems tendentious or perhaps even unfairly pejorative, it is because I’ve decided to adopt her own practices, as evidenced by her column on “affirmative consent”:

This fall, the new affirmative consent law in California, which requires all universities that receive state funding to adopt definitions of consent that translate roughly to “only yes means yes” rather than simply “no means no,” reignited a number of age-old debates about the meaning of consent and sexual assault. One of them is the claim that anti-rape advocacy is attempting to redefine perfectly good sex as rape, and that in this new climate, men cannot ever be safe from being accused of rape no matter how careful they are. . . .

(Translation: Anyone worried about this is paranoid.)

I’ve heard these sorts of remarks too. “I don’t even bother asking women out now,” or “I haven’t had sex for years because I’m scared they’ll call me a rapist.” I feel sad for these men who clearly want sexual intimacy but feel that they have no choice to give it up. And I also feel angry, because this is not what we’ve been saying, and yet they insist that we’re telling them they can’t have sex at all. . . .

(Actually, “we” — that is to say, feminists — have been saying exactly this for decades, as Ms. Mogilevsky would have to admit if she weren’t so disingenuous about her own anti-male ideology.)

I don’t want anyone to be lonely, insecure, and sexually unfulfilled. I don’t want anyone who wants to have sex to be unable to have it. I want everyone to have the confidence to pursue and find the types of relationships they’re interested in. I want everyone to feel worthy and valuable even if they haven’t found a partner yet.
But I also want people to pursue all of this ethically. That means that if you’re ever unsure if someone is consenting, you stop and ask. And if you don’t think you are able to do that, then you should abstain from sex until you are able to do it.

You can read the rest of that exercise in deliberate dishonesty, but let’s pause to notice how Ms. Mogilevsky attributes legitimate concerns about a real danger — false accusations of rape — to men being “lonely, insecure, and sexually unfulfilled.” In other words, feminists have expended enormous effort to terrorize college men with these threats of spurious rape accusations, but if men react rationally to the threat, Ms. Mogilevsky will attribute this to the psychological weakness of males. The sadist revels in the belief that her victims are pathetic and helpless.

Despite her youth, Ms. Mogilevsky has spent years promoting the idea that others are in need of her sexual instruction. In a 2012 column for the student newspaper at Northwestern University, she delivered an unhelpful sermon about “hookup culture”:

Sure, there’s a chance you’ll go to a party one night and meet someone who just happens to like having sex the exact same way you do, but it’s a pretty small chance.
Those lucky people can probably skip the rest of this column, but the rest of us should remember that you can’t get what you want if you don’t ask for it.
Unfortunately, expressing yourself clearly isn’t easy when you’re slurring your words, which brings me right to my next point: In order for hooking up to be safe and fun, we need to stop depending on alcohol as a social lubricant. . . .
I don’t think that casual sex is intrinsically wrong, unhealthy or dangerous. I do think, however, that most of us are going about it the wrong way. For those people who want no-strings-attached sex, hookup culture could be a great thing — just not the hookup culture that we currently have.

Ms. Mogilevsky was active in SHAPE (Sexual Health and Assault Peer Educators) at Northwestern, and is eager to lecture others, as she writes in her recent column about “affirmative consent”:

I wish I could explain consent to all of these men. I wish they could attend one of my workshops about consent, where I help people learn to understand body language, find language to help them ask for and give consent, and show how these skills apply to all areas of life, not just sex.

You see, college men? Your problem is not that you might be falsely accused of rape because you hooked up with a drunk chick whose morning-after regrets morphed into a plan for revenge. Rather, your problem is that you haven’t been lectured by Miriam Mogilevsky.

Only after she has expended a few hundred words about men’s allegedly irrational fear of false rape accusations does Ms. Mogilevsky finally admit how much she enjoys inspiring such fear:

It is possible that someone who doesn’t have to face a high likelihood of being sexually assaulted feels subjectively as bad when they imagine the possibility of “accidentally” assaulting someone as I feel when I imagine the possibility of being assaulted (on purpose).
But for me, personally, the fear of being assaulted is so much worse. . . .
This is why I am glad that men are starting to feel that surmountable fear. I don’t want them to live in terror. I don’t want them to avoid sex out of fear. (That would be how the other half lives.) I do want them to accept their fair share of the responsibility, though. And yes, that means more fear than they may be used to.

Ah, here we have it at last: Fear and Loathing of the Penis!

This existential dread of masculinity has evidently become pandemic among certain sensitive young feminists in recent years, and I’m not sure why, although I suspect it has something to do with the brutal porn-influenced appetites that seem to have taken hold among some young men. Yes, let’s just go ahead and talk about this unfortunate reality:

Due in part to what they see in pornography, teenage boys have no qualms coercing young women into having anal sex, according to a new study, with some of these encounters possibly crossing the line into rape.
Researchers interviewed 130 men and women aged 16–18 from diverse social backgrounds in three different locations in England. The report, published last month, states that young people “frequently cited pornography as the ‘explanation’ for [engaging in] anal sex,” although masculine competition between boys to see who could engage in the activity the most often also played a role.
They found a “key element” in this risky new behavior is the “normalization of coercion and ‘accidental’ penetration. It seemed that men were expected to persuade or coerce reluctant partners.” . . .
Experts say the new research adds to a growing body of evidence that young people, influenced by pornography, are eager to try out the techniques they see online, often with little empathy or regard for the other person’s well-being.

This is obviously a serious problem, but feminists find themselves compelled to avoid confronting the problem directly because:

  1. Criticizing pornography, per se, might result in feminists losing the financial and political support of organizations like the ACLU and the Democrat Party that have long been allied with the pornography industry;
  2. Criticizing anal sodomy, per se, would put in jeopardy feminism’s de facto alliance with gay rights activists whose lifestyle involves the avid pursuit of this practice.

We therefore find that the spread of porn culture has made it something of a competitive sport for young males to inflict upon women a particularly painful sort of degradation, yet feminists dare neither to criticize porn not to criticize specifically the type of assault they most fear. The result? A lot of vague talk about the importance of “consent” and the need to learn “skills” in negotiating sexual activity.

Tell you what: I’m just going to link this first-person account about how such “negotiation” works in real life, so you can click that link, read her story and then join me in deploring the normalization of such activity. And here is feminist Meghan Murphy’s testimony:

My first boyfriend was pissed that I wouldn’t have anal sex with him. Not just because he, you know, wanted to try out all the super sexy things he’d learned watching porn, but because I’d done it before — with other guyswho weren’t him. No fair, amirite?
The fact that the whole, entire reason I wouldn’t have anal sex with him was because I’d tried it already with a couple of other guys and the experience ranged from completely boring and unpleasurable to extremely painful eluded him. My pleasure wasn’t the point. The point was 1) No fair, wah! (i.e. why did other men “get” something he didn’t), 2) The thought of emulating something he masturbated to in porn turned him on, 3) Possible pleasure for him . . .

You can read the rest of that, which must have been embarrassing for Ms. Murphy to admit, but such frankness is preferable to the veil of euphemistic obscurity that has concealed from honest discussion exactly why college women seem so angry about men and sex, an anger that helps fuel the “rape epidemic” hysteria that leads to “affirmative consent” policies and a phony Rolling Stone story about a freshman girl being raped atop a pile of broken glass by a gang of Phi Kappa Psi brothers led by the non-existent “Haven Monahan.”


There, I said it. No matter how much porn performers may make anal sex seem like the ultimate in pleasure, it’s not, at least not for normal people. All evidence suggests that college girls are as willing now as at any previous moment in human history to engage in normal sex. The problem, however, is that some college guys have become bored with normal sex — perhaps because it is so widely available — and are therefore seeking thrills by coercing college girls into abnormal sex.

Exactly how are we to fix this problem? How is “affirmative consent” supposed to work? When a college guy meets a college girl at a party, should they have a loud and explicit conversation about what they’re going to do together — making sure that there are witnesses to their sexual agreement — before they leave the party? Can you imagine the testimony at the ensuing university discipline hearing if she claims he broke their agreement? The dude’s fraternity brothers can be expected to testify that the girl agreed in advance to the activity she claims was non-consensual, while her sorority sisters will testify that she’s not that kind of girl and would never voluntarily do such a thing.

The attempt to enforce “affirmative consent” policies should certainly provide amusement for university officials forced to listen to this kind of testimony, although perhaps some administrators will find it sad and ironic. Here is this intelligent girl with an excellent SAT score and a near-perfect GPA tearfully insisting that after guzzling booze at a party she had no idea that the guy who invited her to his dorm room intended to have sex with her. Then here is the guy, also with a high SAT score and a near-perfect GPA, saying that he has no idea why this girl is so angry at him just because — oops! — he accidentally put it in the wrong hole. Also, he didn’t reply to her text message the next day, so now she’s telling everybody he’s a rapist, which could put a damper on his social life.

It’s difficult for me to muster much sympathy for either the guys or girls in these predictable “he-said, she-said” situations, but I have exactly zero sympathy for an inhuman monster like Miriam Mogilevsky. Anybody who can afford to attend Northwestern University (annual tuition $47,251) is too rich to demand sympathy from me, even if she wasn’t a hate-filled atheist. But her sadistic glee at the thought of inspiring fear in men was certainly enough to earn my complete contempt:

When I first read that Bloomberg piece about waning “hookup culture,” my initial reaction was, honestly, to shrug. Let them be scared. Let them avoid sex and intimacy. I’ve certainly done that because I was afraid of sexual assault.

Yet she must add to such injury the insult of pretended sympathy:

[Men] seem afraid because they still don’t understand that their female partners are human beings with their own subjective experiences, experiences that they would do well to listen to and try to understand.
I don’t want men to live in fear. I don’t want men to stop flirting with women and asking for their number. I don’t want men to start refusing sex with eager, consenting women because what if they’re actually lying and not consenting.
I want them to listen to us. I want them to respect our agency. I want them to let us write the story together with them, rather than writing each chapter themselves and then handing it to us to read, perhaps accepting some critique if they are especially gracious.

“Hell hath no fury,” et cetera. We should never wish ill on people, and must be content to know how unlikely it is that anything good could ever happen to someone as hatefully dishonest as Miriam Mogilevsky.




142 Responses to “Feminism: Equality in Misery”

  1. RS
    December 29th, 2014 @ 12:55 pm

    The problem is, as our host has demonstrated in his Sex Trouble series, is that there is no such thing as “traditional feminism.” While there is a naive majority who perhaps equate feminism with some nebulous concept of equal opportunity, it’s clear that that battle has been “won.” No one can seriously argue that women are prohibited from doing whatever they wish to do. Feminism, however, is much more than that. See, e.g. our hosts discussion(s) of exoteric v. esoteric Feminism for a complete explication.

  2. Fail Burton
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:05 pm

    These are the top two on her Twitter feed right now:

    “Schools’ Discipline for Girls Differs by Race and Hue”

    “The Real Problem With ‘The Interview’ Is Its Racism, Not Its Satire”

    And of course a little below is what I mentioned about Coates writing It’s a Privilege for Me to Be Black” where Coates “illuminated one of the key disadvantages of the white public intellectual: ‘You can live in the world of myth and be taken seriously.'”

    My other advantages would include having the brains to know when I’m a KKK in blackface and knowing what the word “afraid” means, as in I am “afraid” of the 1 in 30 million odds I’ll be shot by a cop and therefore confident I’ll win the lottery. Why isn’t Coates writing about his lottery-confidence?

  3. Jim R
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:09 pm

    I think that this issue – what one might well call the hijacking of feminism – is why the very moniker is heavily out of favor with a large majority of American women (at least, so I have read). They consider themselves as the sort of traditional feminists I discuss and reject the (unfortunately very vocal) minority of whiny, anti-male, perpetual victims who cast themselves as “true” feminists these days, who shriek at the idea that they might not be given free birth control or free abortion on demand or might actually be subjected to questions – by the POLICE!!!! – for reporting a rape.

    There are ladies who’ve commented on this blog that, I suggest, are “feminist” in that they are comfortable in their female skin, expect to be treated with respect, get (ahem) cross if a guy makes sexually crude comments or otherwise treats them like a piece of meat, but DON’T regard marriage as some sort of bondage, DON’T view sex with their husbands / significant others as de facto rape, are NOT pro-abortion, do NOT expect somebody else to pay for their birth control, and generally lead happy, well-adjusted lives free from the idea that they are in danger 24/7 of being gang-raped.

    I would also not be surprised to know that they either pack heat or at least support the right of people to do so, which I believe is also anathema to the modern “feminist”, who seems happiest when women are kept as perpetual victims.

  4. Galen Broaddus
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

    I don’t read Daily Kos, but nice try.

  5. Galen Broaddus
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:38 pm

    I don’t see any adults around here. Hell, the high schoolers I used to teach weren’t half as shitty as most of you commenting here.

    You can provide evidence and reason for your criticism

    You (or anyone else) first.

  6. Galen Broaddus
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

    It would be nice if you would make meaningful statements. “Identity-addicts”? FFS, dude, you’re bordering on self-parody here.

  7. Trazymarch
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:40 pm

    Yeah. It is about GG. For some kind of reason some Gamers saw David Pakman as “neutral” even though he totally isn’t. He is just a bit less radical in case of gamer game than other progressives. And he got attacked by feminists for that. (Proggresive)Revolution eats its own children huh?

  8. Galen Broaddus
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:41 pm

    I thought it was hilarious.

    I’m not sure how that’s a response at all. If you’re admitting that you’re a shitty human being as well, then thanks for that nice little shortcut.

  9. Galen Broaddus
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:43 pm

    I agree that the Miri Mogilevsky in your head is a complete bigot, but fortunately, that MM does not seem to bear any resemblance to the actual human being of that name whose writings are being referenced.

  10. Galen Broaddus
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:45 pm

    I suspect that you have a completely different idea of what constitutes a workshop if you’re coming from a corporate background.

  11. Squid Hunt
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

    I wonder if feminists realize affirmative consent will put an end to feminism’s advance. It declares open war on men. Every interaction with a certain type of woman is done with a huge axe over a man’s head. Men will avoid feminists and only hang around a different sort of woman that actuallly likes and appreciates male attention. Once women realize they are being ignored and marginalized by men, they will abandon feminism becaue it’s a losing team. Human nature.

  12. Quartermaster
    December 29th, 2014 @ 1:59 pm

    So now we’re supposed to feed trolls?

  13. Durasim
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:03 pm

    We should not underestimate the feminist ability to militate and infest society, no matter how self-destructive their actions seem even to theirs and other women’s welfare.

    F. Roger Devlin observed about the sexual harassment craze:

    “Quietly observing the furor over so-called harassment during the past two decades, I wondered how these women could fail to realize that the men of whom they were complaining constituted their pool of potential husbands and that they could not afford to alienate all of them. Clearly, I overestimated their intelligence.”

  14. DeadMessenger
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:07 pm

    While I have actually used nutcracker moves on several occasions, I’m liking your solution the more I think about it. It’s refreshingly unique and different, and I think the cops down at the precinct would enjoy the change. =)

  15. Trazymarch
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:07 pm

    Are the feminist the ones who are most probable to use axe on men? Or maybe average “party girl” is the one? And no. Its not “open war”. It’s hidden war. Feminists will still pretend like they always did that they fight for justice, equality, violence in family, college etc.

  16. DeadMessenger
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:08 pm

    “Blimp hanger”…heh

  17. Eidolon
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:08 pm

    I can’t help but read what you’ve said as suggesting that people who believe in nearly everything that is anathema to feminism and its ideology should nonetheless be considered “feminists” because they have qualities you perceive as positive, which you identify with feminism despite the fact that feminism has no claim to them, did not create them, and in many cases is attempting to stamp them out. I really don’t see why you give feminism credit for any of the things you mention.

  18. Quartermaster
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:16 pm

    What he has described is traditional or “Family Feminism.” Radical Feminism is anything but feminist. It’s just hate.

  19. Jim R
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:20 pm

    Thank you; just so.

  20. Durasim
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:34 pm

    That “sexpert” was probably Dan Savage. Advocacy of “pegging” is one of his most fanatical causes. Savage and his acolytes have not just suggested that heterosexual couples engage in pegging as a way of “evening” the score. They practically demand that all heterosexual men must try “pegging” as some required form of sexual enlightenment.

    Savage and company insist that a man letting himself be anally penetrated by a dildo does not in any way diminish his heterosexuality one bit.

    So I guess there is nothing at all strange or suspicious about a militant homosexual being interested and enthusiastic about heterosexual men being anally penetrated.

  21. Jim R
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:40 pm

    Please don’t confuse the whining, selfish, hateful, entitled brats masquerading as feminists these days with their forebears. There have been women in our history who worked very hard to prove that they could do the work and deserved the rights they wanted (and that women now take for granted). Shall we say that Susan B. Anthony was not a “feminist”? Or Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Or Jacqueline Cochrane? Or “Rosie the Riveter”? Or, in our time, Michelle Malkin or Sarah Palin or Martha McSally? Classical feminism is, I suggest, the attitude that says, “I’m a person created equal to you, and I’ll friggin’ prove it if I have to.” (The same may be said about classical civil rights)

    What I DETEST about today’s “feminists” is that, through their hateful sniveling, their perpetual victimhood, their demands that they be given UNequal status and that the deck be stacked in their favor, their complete disinterest in showing that they DESERVE what they want, they throw mud on the legacy of women far, far better than themselves.

  22. Phil_McG
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:40 pm

    “you’re a shitty human being”

    Wow… just wow. That’s problematic and not OK. I’m probably one of them cisgendered heteronormative shitlords, too!

    Silly rabbit. 🙂

  23. Phil_McG
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:43 pm

    Mirrored shield, my friend.

  24. Durasim
    December 29th, 2014 @ 2:46 pm

    Or Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Jezebel, Gizmodo, RawStory, UpWorthy, Slate, and the rest. They’re all pretty much the same.

    We’re sure you read some or all of those, if you’re not lying about reading Daily Kos.

  25. robertstacymccain
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:03 pm

    This gets to something which I was just saying to my wife — right now, as she was asking me how my book project is coming along.

    More than 40 years after the onset of the Women’s Liberation movement, we have to ask to what extent the problems that young women are complaining about now are actually a direct result of feminism’s “success.” If feminism has caused these problems, does it really make sense to believe that the solution is more feminism?

    Of course not, but since when did feminists ever care if their ideas made sense?

  26. Durasim
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:04 pm

    Here are citations, sir.

    And what one charming feminist mother told her daughter:

    “My mom started encouraging me to “find a nice girl to fool around with.” She told me any woman who had sex with men wasn’t a feminist. She told me all heterosexual sex was rape “by definition.” When I asked her if she meant I was a product of rape, she told me I was “letting myself get raped” every time I had sex with my boyfriend.”

  27. RS
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:11 pm

    . . . [S]ince when did feminists ever care if their ideas made sense?

    I don’t mean to brown-nose, but you should know the answer to that question. It’s not about “success” or “sense” in any meaningful form. It’s about power. It’s about destruction. It’s about nihilism in its most raw form. Beyond the endgame of obliteration of the bonds that hold our society together, there is nothing except some nondescript fantasy, some illusion of utopia, with them in charge.

    They’ll figure out how to keep the lights on and a chicken in every pot later.

  28. Eidolon
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:18 pm

    RSM has researched this topic thoroughly, and I find his explanation of the roots of modern feminist thought convincing as far as its inherent radicalism; thus I can’t see much connection between earlier women who wanted “equality” and feminists who posit evil male domination of women. I would be interested if anyone would connect the earlier female movements to feminism and see how much ideological DNA they share.

    That being said, even those who fought for the right to vote for women are suspect and had some of the negative tendencies of today’s feminists. They fought for all women to have the vote, but not all people — many men, even those who could be drafted, did not have the vote at the time. The suffragettes had no concern for those men. Indeed, the right to vote for all men was eventually conditioned on the eligibility of all men to the draft, while women fought for the vote without such a burden (and were swiftly granted it). Thus even in that early stage (in America, at least) we see a desire for women to have all the benefits of men without the responsibilities.

    At any rate the things you praise are not aims of feminism, thus feminism has no special claim to them unless you accept the specious premise that all accomplishments by women are to be attributed to feminism because it claims to speak for them. As RSM has said, feminism was not hijacked. The radicals have owned it from the beginning.

  29. Jim R
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:24 pm

    Well, I think that we have to agree to disagree on the basic point, though I will say that, IMO, modern feminism has nothing to do with “classic” feminism. The former is just one of many wholly-owned subsidiaries of the democrat party and exists NOT to help women but rather to get democrats into power (note that I do not say “elected” as there are more routes to power in our country than just the ballot box, alas); the latter was a natural extension of the Enlightenment philosophy upon which our country was founded.

  30. Wombat_socho
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:32 pm

    I can’t decide whether you’re being deliberately thick in order to troll, or whether you’re actually this dumb.

  31. Wombat_socho
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:33 pm

    Only to a point. Once they start frothing at the mouth, then we take them behind the barn and shoot them, metaphorically speaking.

  32. Durasim
    December 29th, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

    One wonders why she had to engage in sodomy with multiple persons before she finally realized she did not like it and ceased to do it. I guess her multiple “pre-boyfriends” must have pressured or badgered her into doing it. And it was only when she paired with her “first boyfriend” that she was finally able to refuse depraved male sexual advances.

    Even assuming that Murphy’s story is honest, it does lead to what appears to be a recurring them in today’s sexual affairs. A man in a heterosexual relationship may request to do certain sexual acts or have sex more frequently, but the woman refuses and says that she does not want to have sex as frequently as he does and does not like doing the acts that he wants to do. So the man respects her refusal and drops the issue. But then he finds out that she engaged in such sexual acts in prior relationships with other men, or had sex much more frequently in her prior relationships with other men than she does with him.

    When he asks her why should would do those things with other men but not with him, she may say that those other men were bad and mean and pressured her into doing stuff she did not like. She may be telling the truth and he may take that at face value. He does not want to be like those bad men who pressured her into doing sexual acts she did not like.

    But sometimes he may have a valid suspicion that something else is at play here. Maybe she does not dislike those certain sexual acts or frequent sex per se. She just dislikes frequent sex and sexual acts with him. And perhaps she likes doing those things with other men that she finds more attractive.

    For any husband or boyfriend who has such suspicions, I guess he will never know for sure, until the wife/girlfriend leaves him for somebody else and does the very things with that person that she refused to do with him.

    How many naive husbands who thought their wives were Victorian prudes come to learn that she was doing all manner of kama sutra things with the pool guy?

  33. Fail Burton
    December 29th, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

    “Feminism is the solution, our Prophet is Audre Lorde.”

  34. Fail Burton
    December 29th, 2014 @ 6:26 pm

    Put some cash into a betting pool and I will take it by predicting where these morons will fall on any social issue knowing only the race and gender almost 100% of the time. That is not politics, that is a reflection of hate speech and supremacy and the droning of an insect.

  35. Daniel Freeman
    December 29th, 2014 @ 11:43 pm

    Rosie the Riveter is a fascinating case. Did she leave feminism, or did it leave her?

  36. Daniel Freeman
    December 30th, 2014 @ 2:55 am

    Heh. Now that I know you have stories, you know I’m going to bug you about them. 🙂

    The thing with the pencil is that the butt muscles will close over it, so their friends won’t be able to pull it out themselves. They’ll have to go to a hospital, and then the other half of the pencil can be matched to the part you broke off. Or so I’ve heard.

  37. Daniel Freeman
    December 30th, 2014 @ 3:21 am

    When I was a child, I had a hot fudge sundae at a fast-food joint, and realized that each taste was just as enjoyable even if it was small. I taught myself to extract the maximum enjoyment by making the scoops as small as possible and lingering on them.

    As an adult, I practiced the same philosophy. I’ve read about men needing more and more stimulation (as in harder-core porn), and I feel sad for them.

    I have downloads from DOMAI from years ago that I still haven’t unzipped. As innocent as you can get — just pretty girls wearing nothing but a smile — and it will always be enough for me, because hot fudge sundae.

  38. DeadMessenger
    December 30th, 2014 @ 3:52 am

    Holy schnikes dude! I totally want to go have a beer with you sometime and hear about how you know all this! I’m just a nerdy farmer’s daughter, and my methods are more or less simple direct ones, involving knees, elbows, and instructions from my Dad on how to hit somebody in the face with extreme prejudice (aim for a point somewhat beyond their face and pull your punch accordingly). I could tell you stories, such as the kid who spit on my nice sweater in 9th grade and I “retaliated” and the other kid who missed a target in the school lunchroom in 11th grade and hit my pretty new dress with an orange, and I retaliated massively and probably somewhat excessively, but the dress WAS awful pretty.

  39. Jim R
    December 30th, 2014 @ 8:13 am

    I don’t know if there was much of a conscious “ism” to Rosie, but rather just opportunity both to make better money than women typically had in the past and to do something for her country.

  40. arcadius
    December 30th, 2014 @ 8:28 pm

    Her tone is slightly more relaxed, yes. Slightly less crazy than others is still crazy.

  41. neshobanakni
    December 30th, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

    Did I just hear the voice of Elvis?

  42. Obviously, You Need More Feminist Lectures From Miriam Mogilevsky : The Other McCain
    January 1st, 2015 @ 8:46 am

    […] wrote that before I’d ever heard of Miriam Mogilevsky, otherwise I might have called this “The Miriam Mogilevsky […]