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:
- 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;
and - 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.”
HEY, YOU IDIOTS: STOP DOING GIRLS IN THE BUTT.
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.
The irony is feminists get the men they are qualified by temperament and ideology to have and they don’t like it.
What are the chances men and whites are always wrong and blacks and women always right? She is a bigot and you are a naive chump.
They will lament, but it will be too late, because they refuse to admit that the bureaucracy is a parasite that feeds upon the soul…and most importantly…the money, of its host.
I’m not sure that we agree 100% of the time, Dana, but I do agree wholeheartedly with this comment.
Are you kidding me? I’m a woman, and I can tell you she’s so full of herself, it’s ridiculous. She conducts “workshops”. Anything called a “workshop” that is based upon emotion is total BS. A “workshop” is something like, “Choosing the Right Chart for Your Statistical Message” or “How to Mix Colors With a Limited Watercolor Palette”. A “workshop” dealing with “consent” is 100% a BS resume “builder”. As a corporate manager with 30 years experience, I’d kick this BS artist to the curb in a NY minute.
Yes, thank you. 100% agree.
Common sense and experience needed. Which you don’t have, troll. Wombat notifiication forthcoming…
Okay. Here you go. Enjoy learning the context.
I vote for letting them stay. It could be educational for them, and also I think we need more practice dealing with them.
Roger. I see it now.
Oh noes! That is pathetic.
I know, right? It’s almost like the Daily Kos, but with less profanity. But of course, you would never have double standards. That would be wrong.
You must be new here. Learn to use tags and get up to speed, or get banned and/or left behind.
As long as they’re not obviously abusive, they can stay. But you have to feed them and take them outside to do their business, or back to the pound they go!
Not your place to determine who the adults are around here, bucko.
Yeah…what Daniel said.
When a wombat cautions about feeding and going outside to do one’s business, I have to listen. Thx for the reality check.
Heh. He was burned by the researcher extraordinaire.
OK, here’s where we disagree. I’m a Christian, farmer’s daughter, and daughter of a church elder, and at no time was I ever confused about what random guys might be into, sexually. I’m skeptical that a modern college girl could be unprepared for anything a guy possibly exposed to the internet porn factory could desire. Though, on the other hand, she could be stupid, or maybe her Dad didn’t prepare her sufficiently. My Dad surely taught me how to inflict enough testicular damage to escape any sort of adverse sexual situation that I idiotically found myself in. Maybe it’s a Southern thing, though.
Yeah, and they’re also more likely if you don’t understand the “hard grab and twist” or the “swift kick to the groin, then run” process. If some college puke doesn’t have a gun to your head, I’m not seeing the problem.
There’s the real problem…buyer’s remorse.
OT, but I think universities should have affirmative consent laws as soon as the IRS does.
Agree with you here, RKae. I also have noticed the “porn shift” in my volunteer counseling work. Makes one wonder just how far this will go.
And… whaddayaknow?
Miriam Moe-Szyslak is “sex positive”. Though having seen her, I think she means “sex optimistic“. Seriously, even a blind guy would still be able to feel the contours of her face… and then have his dog lead him to the fire escape.
http://open.salon.com/blog/miriammogilevsky/2011/04/08/sex_positive_manifesto
What in the name of Andrea Dworkin’s big fat ghost is “sex positive”?
“It means that I fully support anyone who identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, polyamorous, kinky, transgender, transsexual, asexual, intersex, or any other identification.“
Except “heterosexual”, natch.
“It means that I support full and open access to education, contraceptives, and abortion.”
Too late for her parents.
“It means that I believe that the reason people get raped is because somebody raped them, and not for any other reason.”
Miriam is a cause-and-effect denier. Tremble before her “brute reason”! (And her face.)
“When I tell people that I’m a sexual health peer educator, you’d be amazed what sorts of conclusions they immediately jump to. Usually it’s something along the lines of, “You must have wild crazy sex with random people of either gender all the time!”
Miriam doesn’t understand sarcasm.
“Actually, no.”
🙂
It’s common now for a guy to have a porn collection on his computer that if printed out would fill a room (if not a blimp hangar).
If a guy had that much porn 30 years ago, he would have been regarded as crazy. Now it’s no big deal.
I guess that’s progress… somehow.
Hah! Maybe that’s why they have such a down on us!
She may well be just the sort of harridan that you, RSM and others suggest. I merely say that, based on my plain reading of what she wrote, she’s a lot less virulent and a lot more sensible than other feminists whose writings I’ve read. It’s
OK for men to ask women out??? It’s OK for men to have sex with women??? Imagine, say, Amanda Marcotte writing such patriarchal, oppressive, misogynist hatespeech! I also appreciate that she cautions women about alcohol, which comes dangerously close to suggesting that they and not just men have some control over and responsibility for what happens to them (this very suggestion cost a university president his job a few weeks ago).
In contrast to Mogilevsky, I had an exchange a few weeks ago with a female SJW-type. My gosh, to hear her tell it, women ain’t safe putting one foot outside a convent! “I don’t feel safe”, “They undress me with their eyes”, &c. Compared to that, Mogilevsky is a nineteenth-century housewife with nymphomaniacal tendencies!
Thank you, thank you very much!
FTFY
If the woman is 120 lb and the man 200 lb, and more frequently in a superior physical position — meaning: on top — and is under the influence as well, then the woman is frequently in the position of being overpowered. We can’t forget this.
But if you actually saw that, then you were turned to stone yourself, and couldn’t be typing this!
Thank you. Mr. Blank kind of missed my point, which is that schoolyard burns are easy — I’m pretty good at them myself — but I want for people that disagree with something to show up like a grownup, with a fistful of graphs and citations. That would make things more interesting.
With regard to Meghan Murphy’s interesting disclosure- Did anyone else notice that she talked about her FIRST boyfriend being disappointed that she would not allow anal sex because she had already experienced it with multiple other guys and didn’t enjoy it?
What the hell? I mean, I know that even in the last 10-15 years since I finished high school and my undergraduate degree that sex and relationships were more and more disconnected. But she had anal sex with multiple guys who didn’t even deserve the moniker of “boyfriend”?!?
I mean, what’s the standard now? They have to be alive for oral, have been seen in some sort of light before vaginal, and maybe you’ve asked for their name before anal?
It’s truly scary that some people find having a meal with someone a more significant commitment than sex.
“I want them to respect our agency.”
I’m sure she wants her agency respected. Until, that is, agency is inconvenient, like when false rape charges appear.
Nice catch. I missed the “first boyfriend” part. How do you bury the lede in the first sentence? Amazing.
I think we have a winner here. Parental figures don’t communicate the depravity that exists.
When feminists say “respect our agency,” what they really mean is “I want them to fear the other men we will summon whenever we women feel aggrieved.”
If she actually tries to fight him off at that point, then he’s going to have to do something about it, and even just a bitchslap would make an objective difference between “I feel like shit because I let him put it in my butt” and “he raped me.”
Unless you can actually see the short hairs, you shouldn’t rely too much on the nutcracker. Guys learn to protect against cheap shots. If still clothed, you’re better off pulling a sharp pencil from your hair, stabbing him in the butt and breaking it off, then stomping down to break some delicate bones in his foot. Then run.
Indeed. I recall reading from a “sexpert” somewhere that if cis-het couples engage in anal, they should trade off who tops. “Pegging” is a thing, and that way you can keep it about pleasure, not power.
I don’t know. Sounds fair to me.
Mogilevsky desires a situation where male/female intimacy is pursued ethically. However, we had that in the form of very well-defined rules and mores for courtship, which rules and mores were deemed ill-suited for the pursuit of modern self-actualization. After all, there’s a reason Love The One You’re With was a major hit. Yet, within that system of rules, the woman was ultimately in charge of her sexual autonomy and there could be no mistake about her intentions and consent. Alas, Mogilevsky and her forebears destroyed that system because the ostensibly sought complete equality with men. Now they have it and are confronting the myriad of broken lives that has resulted.
Spot-on. I made sure my own daughter was reared in a Christian home with the proper knowledge and self-respect required of a Christian women. I also made sure she was proficient in protecting herself against most of what the modern, secular world could throw at her.
And yes, it’s a Southern thing. As much as the Coastal Elites would like to view us as troglodytes, they have no clue about how man and women interact within Southern Culture. The problem is, they get their information from a bunch of effete Yankee novelists, who’ve never been south of Exit 42 on the Jersey Turnpike.
“I’m skeptical that a modern college girl could be unprepared for anything a guy possibly exposed to the internet porn factory could desire.”
I get your point but you are dead wrong. We have to get over our embarrassment because this shit is happening. So here goes.
I worked at an Ivy and I was in contact with undergraduates, mostly female. An article by William Saletan (a real idiot) about women and sodomy had just been put on Slate. He cited a study that claimed that women really really enjoy being sodomized. It never occurred to him that (a) people lie and (b) sample bias. Anyway, we were discussing this, and all the girls were shocked underneath their veneer of sophistication and said they never “did it.”
A lot of these little gals really don’t know what is going on with their male counterparts, when the boys are only with one another.
It’s not a lot different from their naive fag-haggery. Sometimes I wonder what they’d do if they knew what gay men really thought about them. Then again, they have a strong masochistic component underneath the badass shell.
RSM linked to some dumb chick who was careful about making the distinction between men who bottom (because of the prostate gland) and females.
What a bedraggled little puppy. Men don’t enjoy bottoming at all. It’s a cult, and they are brainwashed.
This country has experienced a sweeping moral collapse in the last few years. Never think it can’t get worse.
I wish people would transcript their vids. Reading is so much faster.
Is this about #GamerGate? My search brought up a bunch of vids from October and November where I haven’t watched them yet, but my preconception is that it looks like DP was trying to be anti- and didn’t even get cred.
“My first boyfriend was pissed that I wouldn’t have anal sex with him… because I’d done it before — with other guys who weren’t him.”
My guess is that he was actually pissed because she was having butt-sex with total strangers…
I suggest that you’re bumping into the fact that “feminism” isn’t monolithic. There are those “traditional feminists” (the majority, I think) who simply want such pie-in-the-sky things as equal pay, equal opportunity, &c. They haven’t got any particular beef with men per se.
Then there are the Marcottes and harridans like her who DO see “normal” relations with men as some sort of oppression, patriarchy, and even rape.
Wait. You just changed your name. What was it before? I had some epic insomnia — I’m partially solar-powered, and tend to do poorly around the winter solstice — so my brain is a bit fuzzy right now.
Well said. My mother always said that women’s lib basically gave women the right to live down to the level of the lowest man. I think she had a point.
“Agency” is code for “we’re on a 6,000 year losing streak.”
The former system assumed a relationship between sexual activity and marriage, for the purposes of rearing the next generation. The Progressive Left was successful in its attempt to destroy that system. Having done so, it now desires to rebuild a system which is even more restrictive but which which is completely devoid of any transcendent meaning. The lie underlying this Neo-puritanism is that under the former system, people were repressed and unhappy. That lie is being exposed daily, yet people remain willfully blind to it.