The Pump-and-Dump Feminist

Posted on Comments

 

Reina Gattuso (@reinagattuso on Twitter) is a Harvard-educated feminist and a compelling argument for why men should be warned to avoid Harvard-educated feminists. If it were up to me, heterosexuality would be strictly prohibited at Harvard University for the very reason that no man should ever have sex with the kind of women who attend Harvard University, of whom Reina Gattuso is a typical example.

Actually, Ms. Gattuso is a typical example of many things, none of them good. She is an extraordinarily bad human being, which is why she was chosen as a student speaker at Harvard’s 2015 Class Day:

Reina has spent the past four years studying Comparative Literature and Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality; co-founding a feminist magazine, Manifesta; reading poetry at The Harvard Advocate; and writing for The Crimson, where she co-founded an inclusivity and diversity working group. . . . She is looking forward to spending next year on a Fulbright-Nehru Student fellowship in Delhi, India. But first, Reina is looking forward to outing herself to her grandmother on Class Day.

Yes, American parents, this is why you should send your daughter Harvard (annual tuition $45,278), so that she can celebrate her graduation by “outing herself to her grandmother.” Just in case anyone missed her baccalaureate coming-out speech, however, Ms. Gattuso wrote a column for the Washington Post in which she mentioned that she “has publicly admitted to making out with half the lesbian, queer, bisexual, bicurious and questioning women at Harvard.”

That column, in which she describes herself as “selfish” and “reckless,” was published with the headline, “Why monogamy’s not for me,” which is a rather transparent sour-grapes rationalization. Has anyone ever sought a monogamous relationship with Ms. Gattuso? Of course not. To borrow a line from an old Steppenwolf song, she is evil, wicked, mean and nasty.

No decent person would seek an intimate association with Reina Gatttuso, certainly not on a permanent basis. The Ivy League is decadent and depraved, but she is a very bad person even by Harvard’s abysmally low standards. Among the notorious graduates of Harvard, she is perhaps not as bad as Ted Kaczynski (Class of 1962), but the Unabomber wrote only one manifesto, whereas Ms. Gattuso issues her demands sequentially and in installments as a columnist for Feministing, where she delivers such empowering messages as “Romantic Love Is a Patriarchal Conspiracy,” “My Vagina Is Tired of Compromise” and, best of all, “Sexual Objectification Is an Evil Male Plot for World Domination,” which includes this astonishing sentence:

I literally cannot talk to other women about how upsetting I find being street harassed without part of me feeling a little smug about it.

“Literally.”

This is an astonishing sentence, I say, because it is difficult to imagine that Harvard University would award a diploma in literature to someone who would write such a sentence. As much as I enjoy mocking the Ivy League — meritocracy, my ass — is it too much to expect a Harvard graduate to avoid this ignorant juvenile habit of haphazardly dropping “literally” into sentences as an intensifier? At least Ms. Gattuso did not commit the common error of using “literally” when she meant “figuratively,” but if we ask what function “literally” serves in that sentence, the answer is, none whatsoever.

Would you say that I am being pedantic? Nitpicky and hypercritical? Yes, and deliberately so, because I do not like Reina Gattuso, and one way people communicate hostility is through this kind of fault-finding attitude, where everything the other person does is subjected to mocking criticism and ridicule. This is how feminists treat men, habitually, yet they will start shrieking in panicked victim mode — “Harassment!” “Abuse!” “Misogyny!” — if any man dares call them out on it.

Feminists are simply women who do not like men. They have converted their anti-male hostility into a simulacrum of a political ideology, and expect the rest of us to take their rants and screeds seriously. In the feminist’s mind, she is in the position of a tenured professor and we are all a bunch of clueless kids who have signed up for her Gender Studies class. She is an expert, and we are in need of her enlightenment. The subject of today’s lecture is the same as yesterday and the day before: “Men Are Bad and Stupid, and You Should Hate Them.”

It really is as simple as that. The feminist is a grievance collector, who spends her life cataloguing the wrongs and evils for which men are responsible — that is to say, everything — and encouraging other women to do the same. This endless repetition of gripes and complaints about men is occasionally interrupted by endorsement of some other trendy progressive cause (global warming) as well as predictable electioneering efforts on behalf of left-wing candidates.

For example, whenever CNN goes off one of its periodic white-cop-shoots-black-teenager binges, feminist bloggers will reinvent themselves as experts on racial injustice and after the storm of made-for-TV protests blows over, feminist bloggers go back to ranting about abortion rights and “rape culture.” Their interest in politics is similarly episodic, following whatever is in vogue among progressives. When Bush was president, feminists pretended to be experts on terrorism and foreign policy, but once Obama was elected, feminists suddenly became experts in health-care policy. Currently, feminists seem intent on convincing the world that Donald Trump is the Worst Racist Sexist Homophobe in the History of the World, Ever. However, if Trump should lose the Republican nomination — to Cruz or Rubio or whoever — then feminists will discover that, contrary to their earlier judgment, the GOP candidate who beats Trump is actually the Real Worst Racist Sexist Homophobe in the History of the World, Ever. But I digress . . .

In addition to “making out with half the lesbian, queer, bisexual, bicurious and questioning women at Harvard,” Reina Gattuso also occasionally decides to subject herself to the patriarchal oppression of heterosexual intercourse, and she has written an 1,800-word column explaining how and why she generally despises the men she has sex with:

Alas, friend of mine, you have had an orgasm and are falling asleep. I have not had an orgasm and am not falling asleep, which means I am awake, which means I am now going to lecture you about feminism.
Who are you? (Big questions.) You are anyman, everyman, you are one of any number of lucky bastards with whom I have happened to roll into bed because baby, it’s been a few months and none of the cute activists are texting me back. Or maybe you are a cute activist who texted me back — in which case listen up, buddy, because this one’s for you, too.
Who are you? You’re a decent guy. You’re solid. I do not feel like you are going to rape me. (Yay! Let’s throw a party!)
No, you’re not a bad guy. The sex wasn’t particularly bad, either. And I know bad sex. I know sex that tastes like coercion and I know sex that tastes like endings and I know sex that tastes like hand sanitizer, which is a bad thing to put on your hands before you finger someone.
No, friend, it was not bad sex. It was normal sex. Normal, boring, vaguely dehumanizing hetero sex.
Which is precisely the point: The normalcy.
Believe me: I enjoy having someone mortar-and-pestle me for a few minutes as much as the next ornery bisexual. But friend, I feel that you can do better. . . . .

Here I will interrupt to explain that I can find no independent corroboration that Reina Gattuso has ever had sex with a man. Or a woman, for that matter. Of course, I can understand why anyone would be reluctant to admit that they had sex with a Harvard feminist, but that’s not my point. What I’m saying is I was unable to find a column anywhere with a headline like, “I Banged Reina Gattuso,” so that what she says about having sex with men (or women, or transsexuals, or whatever) is unverified. She claims to have had sex with men, but no men have stepped forward testifying to the truth of her claim. With that stipulation in mind, please continue, Ms. Gattuso:

Because there was something in the choreography of the whole thing that just struck me as, I don’t know — unsatisfying in a way only feminism can remedy.
Yup, I’m talking about the orgasm deficit. . . .
Sex is now over. Sex is now over because you have decided it is over. You have decided sex is over because you are a man, and because this choreography that favors men with penises — man becomes erect, man penetrates woman, man ejaculates — is what we have been told sex is.
Because we’re brainwashed.
Ever heard of a thing called patriarchy? . . .

Your boyfriend is a loser and, therefore, patriarchy.

How many times do we have to read variations of this same tired theme? Anything and everything that any feminist decides to complain about is always blamed on “male supremacy.” Everybody has been brainwashed by the patriarchy, we are expected to believe, and therefore we need feminists to tell us The Hidden Truth of the Oppressive Conspiracy that, in this example, has cheated Ms. Gattuso out of her orgasm. But the Oppressive Conspiracy of male supremacy is so vastly powerful that it can explain whatever irritates or annoys a feminist. The patriarchy is the Swiss Army Knife of feminism, an all-purpose tool of theory and analysis. After several paragraphs of ranting about the patriarchy, Ms. Gattuso finally reaches the, uh, climax of her argument:

We f–k until you come, I do not come, you do not ask if I would like to come or if you can help make me come, and then we’re done f–king, because you have decided we are done f–king, and everyone is supposedly happy.

OK, enough. Anyone who wants to subject themselves to the rest of Raina Gattuso’s lecture can go read the whole thing, but let me suggest that if she is accurately describing an actual experience, she may have misunderstood it.

“Pump and dump” — this is a phrase that the pick-up artist (PUA) community uses to describe a situation in which a guy decides to make a move on a woman who interests him only in terms of a one-time opportunity for sex. This kind of play is also known as “hit-it-and-quit-it,” and may be part of a PUA’s general strategy of running up his number just for the sake of the game. It’s Tuesday night at the local sports bar, not a lot of action available, and here’s this woman who’s giving him green-light signals. She is not the kind of woman he would consider for anything like a actual relationship, but (a) she is clearly signaling her interest and (b) it’s Tuesday.

What the heck, why not? Run up the score. “Pump and dump.”

That’s how the PUA sees it, but — plot twist — he doesn’t want the woman to realize how low she rates in his estimation. The game is about psychology, and the shrewd PUA realizes that the woman flashing him the green light is probably hoping for more than just a one-night stand. In all likelihood, she has in mind some kind of audition, where if everything goes well, he will want to develop a relationship. In that kind of situation, you see, there isn’t much incentive for the PUA to make any extra effort, to be sensitive and considerate. He doesn’t love her. He doesn’t respect her. He has no reason to do anything more than the necessary minimum: “Pump and dump.”

Now, the key to the PUA’s success is this: She never realizes it’s a game. If a player is really skilled, his targets don’t even suspect he’s a pick-up artist. Everybody thinks of PUAs in terms of the bar scene, but a master of the game could be just any guy anywhere. Nobody suspected Asheville, N.C., coffee shop owner Jared Rutledge of being a PUA master during the months he was running up his number:

In 2013, he hooked up with 15 different women, and in 2014, he achieved 22 “scores” (a new woman every 16 days, on average).

Alas, the damned fool decided to brag about his conquests on an “anonymous” blog, and thereby destroyed himself. What was interesting was that some of Rutledge’s targets insisted angrily that they had real relationships with him that weren’t “just about sex,” so that even after they were told they had been played, they still didn’t fully realize the nature of his game. Even though all decent people must deplore Rutledge’s unethical behavior, his remarkable success demonstrates how easily women can be deceived by a skilled player.

And this is what Raina Gattuso doesn’t understand about the men who play her as a “pump-and-dump.” Whether or not any of them would describe themselves as PUAs, they are treating her the way we might expect a player to treat a woman he regards as a “low-value target.” She directs her feminist “orgasm deficit” rant toward “any number of lucky bastards with whom I have happened to roll into bed,” evidently with no thought of how these “lucky bastards” viewed their encounters with her. Does she think they were all incompetent and clueless? Or was it the case, as we might more readily imagine, that these guys didn’t feel the need to waste any extra effort on a casual “hit-it-and-quit-it” score?

An alternate theory is that Raina Gattuso has a (not uncommon) combination of bad judgment and bad attitude. Such women exude a general hostility toward men, a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude that is a sort of pre-emptive defense against unwanted attention. In their minds, they are signaling how “strong” they are, but others just perceive them as rude and bitchy. (Males commit similar errors as, for example, the guy postures as cool and aloof but is perceived by others as merely sullen and hostile.) A woman who tries to strike the “strong woman” pose will, quite predictably, be avoided by most men. What this type of woman will typically do, however, is to aggressively pursue men who strike her fancy, and this is where her bad judgment comes into play, in that she invariably chooses bad men or, at least, men who are wrong for her.

Recall that Ms. Gattuso described herself as “selfish” and “reckless,” which is to say that she is impulsive and irresponsible and makes bad decisions. She has apparently never been in any enduring or stable relationship with any of her lovers, male or female, and what else would we expect? When a young woman makes this kind of attitude and behavior her habit, it is unlikely she will ever change, especially when she has made this the basis of her political identity. Ms. Gattuso has gone out of her way to publicize herself as a promiscuous bisexual feminist — “outing herself to her grandmother” as a graduation stunt at Harvard — and perhaps you can imagine her repudiating her self-created identity, but I can’t. She is utterly doomed to become a crazy cat lady.

Knowing that the comments at Feministing are moderated, I decided to use the system to communicate some useful truth:

The real problem — and I say this merely for the benefit of whichever editor is assigned to delete my comment — is that (a) Reina Gattuso does not actually like men and yet (b) she continues to have sex with men, while (c) believing that the men she has sex with are too stupid to figure out her game. Given her avowed lesbian preference, why is Ms. Gattuso having sex with men at all? In a word: narcissism. She enjoys being the center of attention, and if no lesbians are available to serve her narcissistic need, she’ll settle for whatever male is available. Assuming that these men are even minimally perceptive, however, they can see exactly what kind of game she’s playing.
Well, OK, buddy: You have been invited to worship The Bitch Goddess, who views you as an abject and inferior servant — a mere instrument for her pleasure — and you can either (a) humiliate yourself in masochistic supplication to her imperious demands, or (b) just get it over with and try never to be so foolish again in the future.
While it is futile to offer advice to the omniscient Ms. Gattuso, who already knows everything, I hope the editor assigned to delete this comment will heed my suggestion: Stop treating men as if they are your moral and intellectual inferiors, simply because they are male. Any honest and intelligent man will refuse to be treated in such an insulting manner. This is why the anti-male prejudices of feminists tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies: Feminists treat men badly, and good men therefore avoid feminists, and then feminists wonder why all the men they meet are so bad.

That’s the bottom line, really. For women like Raina Gattuso, feminism is just a political rationalization of their sadistic tendencies.

UPDATE: Linked at First Street Journal and the Political Hat and by Maetenloch in the AOSHQ overnight thread — thanks! — and welcome, Instapundit readers!





 

154 comments

  2. They are in a state of psychosis…

    Political Correctness, in all it’s manifestations is a brainwashing technique based on Marxist Critical Theory

    It is a system of cyclical logic that once adopted by the user
    never allows for another approach, and the end-game is that the assigned
    antagonist always embodies hatred, racism, or oppression.

    They become intellectually trapped, because in order to see and realize
    when they err, they would have to empathize and entertain their assigned
    antagonists point of view…this causes great cognitive dissonance due to contradicting their previously assigned value of the antagonist and so is rejected or avoided.

    The remaining cognitive dissonance is alleviated by the
    religious cult-like belief that they are on the ” right ” or ” good ”
    side of every issue, always battling racists, bigots, and oppressors.
    Like religious zealots they assume moral authority and claim to have ”
    more knowledge ” than the average folk.

    Cults have made up transgressions against their gods, and PC has made up transgressions against their ideal society.

    It is the same type of system used by cults, utilizing the cyclical intellectual trap described by Kafka in ” The Trial “.

    That’s why the media and professors always frame and structure every issue and debate as Victim vs Oppressor…to ensure they stay trapped

  5. Thank you, man that was some great work, very well done. That article should be mandatory reading for college freshman.

    I know your latest area of interest is feminism, but I’m sure you’ve noticed these same exact tactics being used in other fields of study and politics as well. I think these ” made up ” areas of study are for learning how to frame each issue as Victim vs Oppressor, and also to create new transgressions as ammo for zealotry. This is why we see the turmoil across campuses, they are literally in a state of psychosis.

    As long as the media and the professors are allowed to frame each issue as they wish…the idiots will stay in the ” kafka-loop ”

    Thanks again, great work man

  7. Moreover, the participants don’t want to get out because it would ruin their egos when they admit they were duped.

    Out of all the brainwashing tactics, this one is the most terrifying.

  8. Just a couple of things, Robert.

    1. Reina’s post reads more like a political screed than an actual expression of her personal feelings. It’s hard to tell if it’s based on personal experience or not. It mostly repeats the same, tired feminist line that men are brutes. Or as Christina Hoff Sommers labels that attitude: “Women are from Venus, men are from Hell.”

    2. If it is based on real experience, I wouldn’t necessarily assume that all young guys are onto Reina and her game at first. Alcohol and lust can probably make her very pleasant for the first few minutes, especially if she shows some skin. And if everyone is drinking heavily. My guess is that she may be very nice–in a drunk way–to the guy in question and save her raging screeds for after he leaves.

    3. When a guy picks up a girl for a one-nighter, he’s not terribly interested in what she’s getting from the experience. A man who really cares about a woman will take his time and make sure that woman gets what she needs from him. (One assumes that the woman is also doing the same for him.) But the hook-up culture is the antithesis of caring, connected sex. It can’t help but lead to sexual disappointment for women who, feminist or not, want emotional connection. Reina is blaming the one-nighter men for the entire biological and social context of the hook-up culture.

    It sounds like Reina has never had a man who has really cared about her. She has probably pushed the potential for that away with her ideology. I get the feeling, however, that she “doth protest too much” about her wild ways, which sound more like a badge of feminist honor rather than true sexual enjoyment. If she were really honest, she would have to admit that some of the women she had been with were no picnic either.

  10. “It sounds like Reina has never had a man who has really cared about her. She has probably pushed the potential for that away with her ideology. I get the feeling, however, that she ‘doth protest too much’ about her wild ways, which sound more like a badge of feminist honor rather than true sexual enjoyment.”

    As I point out, we have zero confirmation of Reina’s assertions about her sexual activity, probably because no one is willing to admit publicly that they have had sex with her. We can only interpret what she writes in a very limited way. However, she is a certain type — I knew the type quite well, back in the day — and we may deduce that she fits the pattern you describe: She has never been with a man (or a woman, for that matter) who genuinely loved her, for the obvious reason that she is neither a loving person nor a lovable person.

    Think about this: If you were a man hoping to meet someone for a serious relationship, why would you waste time on someone like Reina Gattuso, who is so blatantly perverse and immoral? Could you imagine any man who would want someone like that to be the mother of his children? Impossible! If she ever did have children, she would corrupt them — raise them to enjoy the same filthy wickedness she herself celebrates — and so, as I say, her doom is to be a crazy cat lady.

    It is a sad thing to see someone make such an awful ruin of themselves, but if her parents don’t care enough about her to prevent this kind of behavior, what can be done?

  11. It does sound like she thinks she’s completed a radfem hazing ritual, doesn’t it? That she finally had an epiphany about how eeeeevil men are, and that she now must joined The Enlightened radfems?

  12. She means the liberal definition of “harassed” which is just as reality-deprived as their definitions of “racism”, “sexism” and “the economy’s doing great!”

  13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vZR2IV0Mc Hillary Clinton had aides send her top secret info through unsecure channels compromising national security.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdqmw5J5ZeI Hillary Clinton finally admits 0bamacare destroys businesses, jobs and switches full time worker hrs to part time. Hillary/Bernie for Gitmo Prison in 2016. 😀 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1udjd2Aq3E Hillary Clinton hating on videogames and what she thinks of gamers.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUbnGGwhkfw Secret Service hates Hillary Clinton *ROFL*
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Q8ObN6CFw MSNBC claims Star Wars is racist/Star Wars fans are racist *lol*
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1daFjaVBI Bill Clinton has affair with new mistress https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3auKMHkZJnQ well, well, well, Looks like Trump was right about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. and the left claimed nobody was celebrating such.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cUi1s9lpys Bernie thinks climate change causes terrorism. he must be senile or completely nuts *lol*
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTY1V4ZijO0 Dems wants to disarm people after Paris attacks

    did you know 0bama/dems are usually having gay sex orgies with ISIS, union thugs, dogs, goats, muhammad, chris matthews, michael moore, allah, socialists, arab children, camels, and other communists. while they worship their Masters: Allah/Karl Marx and spread communism. mwahahaha

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbxzUfhRHJo greg stumbo’s epic shock/meltdown

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yxGsWHx9o the real democrat debate

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU planned parenthood caught harvesting and selling baby parts

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg more videos surface exposing them haggling prices & such. MSNBC is really afraid of this. *lol* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber and the Democrat Machine/0bama/Bernie/Hillary bragging about deceiving the American people on the healthcare law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnELYqmsMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKGG-B-M1bY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EItfE-3zVdU

  14. Cats deserve better. Let her raise rats.
    India has a nasty way of shaping radical feminazi types. She’d best avoid public transportation.

  15. RSM, you really should post articles like this in a separate blog titled No Time For Grownups.

    This is an astonishing sentence, I say, because it is difficult to imagine that Harvard University would award a diploma in literature to someone who would write such a sentence.

    It’s a very common error to assume that Ivy League institutions today uphold academic standards, even those standards that in times past would have been thoroughly drilled into a student as second nature hy the time they finished Junior High School (even in a third-rate public school). Such standards are relics of a racist, backward, oppressive patriarchy that are not to be tolerated by a progressive institution like Hahvard.

    The fact that all the men you date are worthless losers is not a political issue, ma’am

    The fact that she dates worthless losers is … well, “birds of a feather” …

  16. Yep. Generic “BULLSH1T!” should be called on ANY woman in the U.S. who claims to be a victim of “street harrassment.” It’s like claiming that you were atfacked by a polar bear in the Arabian Desert.

  17. A paranoid sociopath who talks about men as if they are all one slightly clueless monkey while claiming her goal in life is to not defame groups in that exact way.

    Why would she be attracted to gay feminist theory or post at one of the nuttiest feminist sites even by their insane standards? Feministing is nothing more than a reversed out KKK and this woman a perfect fit.

    If I didn’t know better I’d think these women were shills hired by a secret group dedicated to proving women shouldn’t vote, because this women is little more than a predatory animal living off the fumes of her family’s success.

  18. I wouldn’t go as far as calling her a sociopath just yet, but she’s definitely a narcissist.

    She, like many in the radfem movement and others like ISIS, get off on hatred and blaming “the enemy”. Such a desire to reaffirm the ego is much like a drug addiction: it gives you a high, but overall it will mentally and emotionally destroy you.

  19. Given she is at best a 4, it is clear she’s lying about all her conquests. No one makes out with her, much less has sex, except when really, really drunk. More likely is that she hates sex, and is unable to have an orgasm, which is the source of her anger, as well as her jealousy directed at the attractive women who get attention from attractive, well adjusted men. Pump ‘n dump is the only sex she’s had. More interesting, lots of women don’t have orgasms, but are still attracted to men and enjoy sex. Even more likely is that her bisexuality is a lie, and she’s just a lonely and angry women who hates herself and projects that on men.

  21. I don’t know that she is actually perverse and immoral. I think she is probably very angry, immature, and thinks that feminism will be her salvation. In some ways, she’s more to be pitied than censured. Radical feminism is using her and leaving her empty and purposeless. She won’t realize this until she is much older, and then might will be too late.

    However, no matter what her motivations, she wouldn’t be someone I would like to know in any capacity.

  22. Anyone who subscribes to a formulaic comprehensive dogma which lights up half the people on Earth is a sociopath.

  24. There is a lot of pathology going on inside Ms. Gattuso’s head, not the least of which is believing that every smallest detail of her life is somehow evidence for a larger sociological trend. What’s missing is a realization that her disappointment with relationships correlates to her view of sexual intimacy as merely a bodily function and not a reflection on the relationship itself, a view which is advanced by Feminism. If romantic love–i.e. a love which transcends the moment–is “patriarchal” plot, then by definition it’s a bad thing. Yet, she cannot find satisfaction in the alternative of reducing love to mere momentary, transient gratification. The sad thing is, subconsciously many of these people know they’ve been sold a bill of goods and that they’ve embraced a philosophy which only leads to anger, bitterness and heartache. Their anger is misplaced, however. It should be directed at the worthies who peddle this stuff on college campuses in order to drag innocent teenagers down into the muck with them.

  27. WOAH! I see a big problem with your thesis…

    “…in the position of a tenured professor … is an expert, and we are in need of her enlightenment.”
    It has been my experience that certain”tenured professors” (and the ilk) are are NOT up to the credentials they have been bestowed, by the folks that do NOT want anyone “smarter than they are” given ANY traction in ANY way.
    SEE: Aesop, The Bitch in the Manger.

  28. 3?my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet?….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    4omd…..
    ??
    ??? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsTrust/GetPaid/98$hourly…?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

  30. Being a very “visual” reader, often when a read an article a little “video” runs in the back of my mind.

    In cases like the heterosexual behavior related by Mr. McCain as described by the femininny, the film always ends the same way:
    The male’s member turns a green-brown, jumps out of his pants, and runs off “into the sunset” while making “whipped puppy” sounds… never to be seen again!

    Just thinking of the “possible pox” infesting the space causes me to break into a heavy cold sweat!

  33. (Getting back to the actual root of the argument, rather than a poorly created character attack) Robert (and any man who so enthusiastically commented on this), what would you say your actual ratio for receiving versus giving an orgasm is to the women in your life (especially the ones you actually believed you cared about)?

  34. There is a simple truth that has eluded her:

    Angry people don’t have orgasms.

    Since she’s perpetually angry, there you go.

  35. Are you sure that photo isn’t an early snap of the child-abusing lesbian has-been actress Sandra Bernhardt?

  36. What is her argument (in the rhetorical sense) precisely? As best as I discern, reduced to its essence it is, “I had a less that satisfying physical encounter with someone in whom I was interested solely for my physical pleasure. Therefore, ‘booo men’ and ‘yay Feminism!'”

  37. Her public vulgarity aside, your question presupposes the answer. I need no overweening arrogant comments from a stranger about “believed.”

  38. Like all the women like this McCain has highlighted, they assume men can’t read their sociopathy, shallowness, lack of compassion and narcissism in about 10 min. of conversation. That immediately puts the “love” affair on the level of free prostitution. Or course men are going to give that back in kind which means little in return for such women. Why in the world is this woman surprised men don’t care about her pleasure?

  39. Exactly. She engages in blatant provincialism and projection onto society and men of negative stereotypes she believed in the first place. How one can drag 3.5 billion men into her personal rat’s nest of problems is beyond me.

  40. Indeed. Her question presupposes that life and “love” are merely a series of internet fueled trysts devoid of meaning beyond transitory genitalia tickling followed by a notation on some scorecard. Merely asking the question demonstrates why these people are unhappy, though it’s impossible for them the grasp the precise reason why.

  41. Call me a crackpot, but I really felt like I was reading the ramblings of someone demon-possessed.

    (I wish I were joking.)

  42. Dude.

    This is not an open thread. And it’s not your website.

    BTW, I don’t much care for video games either. They’re the male version of that box of kittens, if you know what I mean.

  46. I’m guessing that if you don’t expect an orgasm, it might be difficult for you to have one.

    We had been told that lack of opportunity and women’s poverty was the reason for Feminism®, but now we find out that the real reason is bad sex. Still, it seems that Miss (I refuse to use the ‘honorific’ Ms, which is an abomination until the Lord) Gattuso has “rolled into bed” with “any number of lucky bastards,” for reasons which appear to be mostly trivial, and she remains surprised that those sexual encounters have not all been great ones.

    What our esteemed host missed is that Miss Gattuso has, rather obviously, been indoctrinated by the Hallmark Movie Channel or Victoria Holt novels, and expects first-time sex to b mind-blowingly wonderful, even though she has forgotten the romance part which precedes the wonderful sex in the romance novels and movies, she has skipped the build-up to everything, gone straight to the end, and is dumbfounded when the end isn’t what she thought she should get.

  47. “Anyone that subscribes to a formulaic comprehensive dogma that lights up half the people on earth is a sociopath.”

    That’s not quite true, because I know a few relatives who have lit up the majority of people on the earth, specifically anyone who has seen an “allopathic doctor” (a regular doctor). They’re all highly paranoid and severely depressed, and at least one of them should be institutionalized because she refuses to take any “brainwashing” medication.

    Anyways, I was trying to be fair, because we don’t exactly know how she interacts with people outside the blogosphere (oh, how I would love to be the fly on the wall!) and whether she has been in trouble with the law or tortured animals or people. Knowing the latter is particularly important because it’s a major diagnostic criteria of sociopathy.

Comments are closed.