The Other McCain

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

How Far Must We Go To Beat The Poe?

Posted on | April 21, 2016 | 9 Comments

by Smitty

Poe’s Law, that is:

Category: humor, Uncategorized

Words Mean Things (and Why Should We Trust @CharoShane to Tell the Truth?)

Posted on | April 20, 2016 | 110 Comments

 

Does that sound right to you? Read it again:

“‘High maintenance’ is a great way to make a woman who puts tons of effort into her own life sound like a burden on a man.”

What does “high maintenance” mean? This isn’t a phrase I often use, because I got married in 1989 and the phrase “high maintenance,” used as a pejorative against women, wasn’t commonplace when I was dating. However, from the way younger men use it, I’ve always thought of “high maintenance” as roughly synonymous with spoiled. To call a woman “high maintenance” is to imply she is a certain familiar type.

Years ago, I began to notice this type — the Suburban Princess — who at an early age becomes accustomed to being pampered and indulged. She’s good-looking, or at least not bad-looking, and she learns to exploit this to her advantage. Because so many men are willing to kowtow to her, to placate her demands and tolerate her tantrums, she develops an imperious attitude. She is the Princess, every man is expected to serve her, and woe unto any man who finds himself in a relationship with such a woman. She seldom stays with any boyfriend longer than a year or two, but she’s seldom alone, because she has a cunning eye for the next fool in the parade of men eager to try (and inevitably fail) to make her happy. We encountered this type a year ago, when ESPN reporter Britt McHenry melted down in a tantrum:

Everybody knows her type, and everybody hates her type. A good-looking girl gets all the breaks, especially if she’s a rich good-looking girl, and our universal contempt for the spoiled-rotten Suburban Princess isn’t because we’re sexists, but because everybody who’s ever had to deal with one of those high-maintenance brats knows what vicious, selfish sadists they can be.

McHenry only got suspended a week for her abusive behavior — she just had “an intense and stressful moment,” she said — when anyone who wasn’t young, blonde and beautiful probably would have been fired. She’s in the TV business, you see, and TV needs beautiful young blondes, a market demand that confers lucrative advantages on those who are the supply of this valuable commodity. At any rate, I cite the example of Britt McHenry merely to point out that to me, the phrase “high maintenance” has a connotation, describing a certain bratty personality type. So when I encountered Charlotte Shane claiming that “high maintenance” refers to “a woman who puts tons of effort into her own life,” I was puzzled.

Charlotte Shane? Oh, wait a minute! Yes, we remember her:

Charlotte Shane (@CharoShane) is a slut who writes about sex. There are a lot of these around lately. I blame Sex and the City, or maybe let’s go back further and blame Helen Gurley Brown. At any rate, the ambition of every young female English major nowadays is (a) to have sex with dozens of men and (b) get paid to write about it. It’s journalistic prostitution, really — exhibitionism justified by the excuse that the Let-Me-Tell-You-About-My-Sex-Life racket is about feminist empowerment.
There is an interesting 21st-century double-standard about the sexual memoir genre, namely that men aren’t allowed to engage in it. A man who boasts about his sexual exploits is condemned as a misogynist, as [pickup artist] Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh could testify. Everything we are allowed to know about sex, it seems, must be filtered through a feminist lens, and men’s perspectives on sex are therefore unwelcome. Feminism is the belief that men are always wrong about everything, especially sex. And so the question of what guys enjoy sexually is never asked, let alone answered, because feminism is not about making men happy.

Will our culture never reach the “Peak Slut” moment? Honestly, I was weary of the sexy tell-all genre long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, two months after I arrived in D.C., and editing all those transcripts, affidavits, etc., during the subsequent impeachment proceedings certainly satisfied whatever morbid curiosity I had previously retained — which wasn’t much, honestly. Nobody wants a man to tell what he knows about sex or how he learned what he knows, so never mind the details, but I could never be fairly accused of ignorance, inexperience or naïveté in such matters. Being a conservative (and a married father of six) requires me to disapprove of sinful depravity. However, I was once a young Democrat and just because I exercise my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent doesn’t mean I have no stories to tell. You probably wouldn’t believe some of my stories, even if I were being compelled to testify under oath which, thank God, I’m not. But I digress . . .

The Lewinsky scandal should have taught us to be skeptical toward what people tell us about their sex lives. The phrase made famous by Bill Clinton’s defenders — “Everybody lies about sex” — is not true, because most people have enough common sense not to talk about their sex lives. When accused of sexual wrongdoing, of course, people can be expected to deny they have done anything wrong, but if it weren’t for Linda Tripp and the DNA evidence in the stain on Monica Lewinksy’s blue dress, we could not be certain that Bill Clinton was lying about sex. Without evidence or corroborating testimony, it was entirely possible to believe that she was just a crazy fat girl who had imagined all those weird sexual trysts with the President of the United States.

OK, so what are we supposed to believe when we encounter women like Charlotte Shane who talk, talk, talk about sex, sex, sex? Pardon my skepticism, but I am always dubious about such people, and that was before I discovered that “Charlotte Shane” is a pseudonym. What would you like to bet that, if a bunch of hackers ever got interested in finding out who “Charlotte Shane” really is, we would be able to compare her tales to her actual life and discover glaring discrepancies? She is a skillful writer, but this doesn’t mean she is a particularly honest writer, and there are aspects of her various stories that lead me to wonder, “Is she telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

What is “Charlotte Shane” omitting from her biography? What would we learn if we learned the whole story? Who was “Drunk Client”?

“That time drunk client spanked me while yelling
‘you’re a hooker who clock watches’ and I laughed
the laugh of a woman living her best self”

 

“In a show of his love, Drunk Client insisted on
having me pee in his mouth. And immediately
used it as a bargaining chip to get my real name”

Not that this is necessarily false, you understand, but how is it that in 2013, she was hiring herself out for such, uh, services? We search her body of work for some kind of biographical clue:

The moment my breasts appeared on my body, I recognized them as the enemy. When I was growing up, Winona Ryder, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Kate Moss were the go-to glamour girls of teen magazines, and all of them are lithe in a way that cannot be imitated if your boobs are big. As a top-heavy pre-teen — tall, pudgy, and busty from puberty onward — I was doomed to remain outside the circle of the mid-90s’ most desirable women. . . .
I grew up in a part of the country full of chicken farms, where my babysitter hunted deer with a crossbow, and my mom made us scrapple at least one morning a week. So you might think a “heartland” American sense of style would be my saving grace. . . .
But at the age when I started taking a more active role in what I wore, I was a bookish introvert who most wanted to emulate the look modeled by my private school peers: that of the preppy, casually rich. Unfortunately, I had neither the body nor the budget to pull it off. . . .
Larger breasted women, from Marilyn Monroe to Scarlett Johanssen and Kate Upton, are usually relegated to the realm of pin-up, a man’s object of desire but not a figure for well-bred woman to emulate. I blamed my boobs from keeping me from ever looking truly skinny, my ultimate physical goal, and from looking rich, my ultimate style goal. They were the biggest — no pun intended — obstacle to achieving my vainest dreams.

This description — a “tall, pudgy . . . bookish introvert,” attending a private school in the “heartland,” and envious of her “preppy, casually rich” classmates — makes it difficult to understand why, at age 30, she was working as an escort, her clients including a kinky drunk who enjoyed spanking her and having her urinate in his mouth. We keep searching and find this story from 2012:

When I was in junior high, my friend Julia (not her real name) told me over the phone that she’d just lost her virginity to a neighbor who’d found her crying at home alone over a breakup. She was home alone, crying, when he’d knocked on the door and she invited him in. They’d sat down on the couch together as he comforted her, and then he f–ked her there. She was 11. The neighbor was 19.
To whatever extent we can trust my memory from 17 years ago, I remember Julia sounded ambivalent, a little surprised and a little uncertain. She wasn’t outwardly distressed nor did she seem like a numbed zombie. When I asked her if she’d wanted to have sex with him, her answer was inconclusive. She didn’t give me details, and I didn’t press for them, partially because I was 12, and a virgin, and I could not imagine what such an experience would entail.

Again, we have no actual reason to think her story is false, but in this particular article, “Charlotte Shane” also includes the helpful detail that, by 2012, she had already spent “eight years as a sex worker,” a career she began by “providing so-called sensual massage” in her early 20s. So from her being a pudgy introvert, envying her rich classmates at a private school in the heartland, where 11-year-old girls fall prey to roaming rapists, we flash forward a decade to her doing “sensual massage” by age 22. What happened to “Charlotte Shane” that led her on this journey from introverted virgin to sex worker? From 2011, we have her Salon.com column “To all the girls who envy my life,” in which she describes how, ever since she started blogging (circa 2008) about her career as an escort, she has received a steady stream of emails from young women “somewhere between the ages of 17 and 25” who wish that they could be sex workers, too. Musing about the “complex” causes for the “glamour of prostitution,” she draws a predictably feminist conclusion:

It’s the persistent symptom of a society that still insists sexual desirability is a woman’s duty, and wealth is the most important hallmark of success. A young woman who is desirable is a young woman who wields power, and that power is often bestowed in the form of cold, hard cash.
Which isn’t to say the women who e-mail me are power hungry. Rather, I think they are recognizing the ways their culture tells them to achieve.

You see? It’s “society” and “culture” which gives young women the idea that being a prostitute is glamorous. There is no more perfect formula for avoiding personal responsibility than to blame “society” or “culture” for whatever is wrong with your life. Bad ideas are imposed in your mind by the “culture,” and then “society” more or less forces you to comply with these messages. Next thing you know, you’re 22 years old doing “sensual massage” and by the time you’re 30, you’re getting spanked by a drunk client who wants you to urinate in his mouth. Just another day in the harmless sex-for-money business, and if anyone thinks this is a glamorous career? Blame society!

The girls who e-mail me are not lacking internal resources. They’re educated, sensitive, observant, and they have the complex sentences and insightful wording to prove it. But they are living in a world where a woman’s worth is constantly equated with her sex appeal. Is it any wonder that many women might find it compelling to take that equation to its logical end?
These women are also often insecure, which I recognize because I was (and am) insecure, too. When I first started working in the sex industry, I thought my motivation was purely curiosity, but I see now that while curiosity gave me courage, insecurity was wearing the spurs. I was so highly self-critical as a young adult that by the time I was 12 I vowed I’d have breast surgery. (I wanted a reduction, since natural large breasts meant I’d never look truly skinny.) I struggled with an eating and exercise disorder, both of which were so common among my peers that they were unremarkable. I talked my parents into paying for medically unnecessary braces to close the gap in between my front teeth, which was easy since most kids my age were having cosmetic orthodontic work as well. While I was sexually ravenous — I was a teenager, after all — I couldn’t stand the thought of any boy seeing my body. So I was not quite a born natural when it came to selling myself for sexual consumption, but entering the industry quickly taught me that femininity is all performance, and it became a performance at which I was adept.

What. The. Hell.

Gosh, it’s so weird that none of my kids developed an eating disorder, nor did they demand my wife and I  pay for “medically unnecessary braces.” Evidently, these problems were ubiquitous in the “heartland” where Charlotte Shane grew up during the 1990s, where her junior high school friend got raped at age 11, and an insecure introvert became a “sexually ravenous” teenager who couldn’t stand to have boys look at her body. While I do not assert that any detail of her narrative is specifically false, there seems to be something basically wrong here. There is something missing, some plot twist omitted from the story.

Words mean things, and when a woman tells me (a) she attended private school, (b) she was “sexually ravenous” as a teenager, and (c) she began “selling myself for sexual consumption” in her early 20s, my hunch is (d) she got involved with The Wrong Guy at some point.

Your parents could afford private-school tuition and “medically unnecessary braces,” and yet by the time you’re a senior in college, circa 2003, you’re “providing so-called sensual massage”? Yeah, life is hard for liberal arts majors, but not all of them end up as whores, ma’am, and I’m not buying any of your “culture and society” explanations, either.

What is she asking us to believe?

“Oh, look,” says the bookish and insecure 21-year-old English major. “There’s a ‘Help Wanted’ sign in front of that massage parlor. Sounds kind of interesting. I think I’ll go apply for a job. Purely curiosity!”

No, ma’am, this is not the whole story. Former prep-school students don’t just randomly go to work in the “sensual massage” business. Whatever happened — dumped by a boyfriend, busted for dope, flunked your finals, whatever — there must have been something that put you in a very low place, with a rather desperate need of cash. There’s no way a middle-class girl from the “heartland” starts doing hand jobs to pay her bills without something in her life going badly wrong to explain how she got there.

Excuse me for belaboring this point at such length, but the pseudonymous “Charlotte Shane” is always talk, talk, talking about sex, sex, sex, as if (a) none of the rest of us know anything at all about sex, and therefore (b) we need a whore to advise us on this topic. Whereas it might actually be helpful if she would write something honest like, “How I Screwed Up My Life So Bad I Became a Whore and How Other Women Can Avoid This Miserable Degrading Life of Shame and Infamy.”

Putting “tons of effort into her own life.” Right.

Bad enough to be a whore. Why you got to be a lying whore?




 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 04.20.16

Posted on | April 20, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 04.20.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: How We’ll Remember John Kasich
Louder With Crowder: Trans-Bill Schoolhouse Rock
EBL: He’ll Take Manhattan, Staten Island, And The Bronx Too
Da Tech Guy: Baldilocks – Hot Sauce And Bones
The Political Hat: Social Justice So-Called Anti-Bullying Activists Want To Dox Kids
Michelle Malkin: H-1B Job Creation Lie Busted Again – Thanks, Intel!
Twitchy: Wall Street Accusation Launches Search for Alan Grayson’s Self-Awareness
Shark Tank: Corrine Brown Can’t Prove Minority Dilution, Loses Her Redistricting Case


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Over 100,000 NY Voters Vanish Ahead Of Primary Election Day
American Thinker: Where Are America’s Drowned Cities?
Don Surber: Whole Foods To Sue Gay Hoaxer
Jammie Wearing Fools: Fake Black Guy Masquerading As NY Daily News Columnist Busted For Plagiarism
Joe For America: DNC Chair Wassermann-Schultz Agrees – Repeal First Amendment!
JustOneMinute: Post Primary Open Thread
Pamela Geller: CBC Won’t Name Mass Rapist Because He’s A Muslim Migrant
Protein Wisdom: You Mean To Tell Me That The “Anti-Gay” Cake Thing Was A HOAX?
Shot In The Dark: Contextualized!
STUMP: Pensions Watch – Non-Complete Disaster Edition
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – DePaul University Now Chalk-Free Zone
The Lonely Conservative: Video – Protesters Bused In To “Fight For Fifteen”
The Quinton Report: Sheila Dixon Compares Herself To Jesus
This Ain’t Hell: Another Chapter In That Continuing “Good News” Story Called Obamacare
Weasel Zippers: Cash-Strapped ISIS Killing Wounded Fighters To Sell Their Organs
Megan McArdle: Parents Are Bankrupting Themselves To Look Adequate
Mark Steyn: A Se’ennight Of Steyn


In The Mailbox will be offline until next Wednesday, April 27.
Off to Minnesota in the morning…


Fallout: New Vegas Ultimate Edition
Tons of coupons on Amazon!
Just released: Marko Kloos’ Chains of Command

Category: Linkagery

Emily Depasse (@eld3393) Affirms Her Pride in Being Infected With Herpes

Posted on | April 19, 2016 | 87 Comments

“I am able to embrace my herpes positive status. . . .
“I have no shame in who I am. . . .
“I have sex, great sex. I write about sex. I talk openly about sex.”
— Emily Depasse, April 18, 2016

Readers will remember Emily Depasse as the feminist who bragged about teaching sex to 12-year-olds in Baltimore during the #ShoutYourStatus campaign to “destigmatize” sexually transmitted diseases.

Beyond the insanity of celebrating herpes — which “actually made my sex life healthier & more satisfying than before,” Ms. Depasse boasted — her participation in this online publicity campaign called attention to how schools are promoting the feminist agenda to children whose parents likely have no idea what is being taught in classrooms. Would you want Emily Depasse talking to your seventh-grader? Speaking as the father of six children (the oldest of whom is a teacher, and the youngest now a seventh-grader), I am certain that I would not want a mentally ill pervert like Emily Depasse anywhere near my children. Why would a private academy hire such a person as the “Sex Lady” to instruct children? And if the children of the wealthy elite are being indoctrinated by radical feminists at a prestigious school where tuition is more than $25,000 a year, isn’t it likely such beliefs will become increasingly influential?

Concern for the well-being of young people, a desire to protect them against harmful influences, is every parent’s natural instinct. However, feminists are hostile to parenthood. Emily DePasse has written on her blog, “At this point in my life, I do not foresee myself having children, nor do I really want them,” and describes herself as “self-admittedly too selfish to have children.” Consumed by this attitude of narcissistic arrogance, feminists are unable to comprehend why parents oppose the shameless immorality that has defined feminism’s agenda for decades.

Dana Mack’s 1997 book The Assault on Parenthood: How Our Culture Undermines the Family detailed how this hostility toward parents had become commonplace in the public education establishment and other institutions. Government schools not only indoctrinate children in atheism, but they also deliberately subvert parental authority and promote radical ideas about “gender” and “sexuality” to children.

This belief system has become so pervasive within the educational establishment that now we see it being embraced by allegedly Christian schools, including Augsburg College, a former Lutheran seminary, and at Catholic institutions like the University of Notre Dame.

 

It seems that many who call themselves “Christian” educators have forgotten how Professor Mary Daly celebrated the feminist movement “not only as Antichrist but also as Antichurch,” as a “rising woman-consciousness” to destroy the “Christocentric cosmos.” More than four decades later, we see the consequences of abandoning the Bible, as feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — becomes the basis of understanding human sexuality. Forsaking their moral duty by embracing this satanic agenda, many allegedly Christian educators now teach the same evil ideas that are destroying the souls of children in public schools.

Emily Depasse’s parents sent her to Our Lady of Good Counsel High School, a prestigious Catholic prep school where tuition is $19,550 a year. Despite this, DePasse explained on her blog how “when I first made the decision to have sex” during her sophomore year, “I wrote my mom a letter explaining that I needed to get on birth control.”

Am I the only one who hears an alarm bell ringing here?

 

What kind of “Catholic” education are parents paying $19,550 a year for Our Lady of Good Counsel High School to provide, if sophomore girls at this school behave so directly opposite to Catholic doctrine? If you are a parent and your 15-year-old daughter informs you she has “made the decision to have sex,” wouldn’t you go to the courthouse and take out a restraining order to keep your daughter’s boyfriend away from her? Let us stipulate that teenagers are prone to sexual misadventures, no matter how adults attempt to prevent it. However, do we expect the mothers of Catholic schoolgirls to endorse this activity and to enable such behavior by providing their minor daughters with contraceptives? Are we now so far down the slippery slope into decadence and depravity that parents must become accomplices to the corruption of their own children?

Where I come from, the boy in such a situation would consider himself fortunate if the police got hold of him before her father did. There are probably still many fathers in America who wouldn’t mind doing a year or two in jail for aggravated assault after whupping the daylights out of any boy they caught messing around with their daughters. Parental authority in such matters was once recognized as socially beneficial, and if teenagers still ran wild, no grown-up was required to tolerate their shenanigans.

There used to be something called romance in this world, and making teenage boys fear the wrath of a girl’s parents was part of it. Really, wasn’t this the great drama of Romeo and Juliet? What was all that swordplay between the Capulets and Montagues about? Family honor, which is also the theme of The Godfather. Remember how Sonny pounded on Carlo for his abusive treatment of Connie? And remember how, after Carlo betrayed Sonny to the Barzinis, Michael confronted Carlo?

 

“Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Stracci. Cuneo. Today I settled all family business, so don’t tell me that you’re innocent.”

Old-fashioned ideas about family honor once informed our culture, because it was understood that love should lead to marriage, and that “sexuality” should be about man and wife uniting in love, forming families with children of their own. This is simply human nature, but radical feminism is a War Against Human Nature. Feminists despise marriage, feminists hate babies, feminists seek to destroy the family and, in the course of this destructive pursuit, feminists destroy the basis of love.

“Certainly all those institutions which were designed on the assumption and for the reinforcement of the male and female role system such as the family (and its sub-institution, marriage), sex, and love must be destroyed.”
— The Feminists, 1969

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, 1988

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, 2014

Those feminist quotes, among others, were included in my description of how Emily Depasses’s pro-herpes agenda has become “What Feminists Want to Teach Your Kids.” Readers who have followed the Sex Trouble series know how many quotes like that I can stack up. Pete Da Tech Guy rightly invokes a famous quote from the movie Patton: “Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!” After more than two years of research, I am thoroughly familiar with their ideology and rhetoric. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and it is important to expose the deceptive propaganda methods of their movement. Do not doubt that Emily Depasse knows what feminist theory actually is. She majored in Gender and Sexuality Studies at Maryland’s Salisbury State University, where her classes included “LGBTQ History,” “Philosophy & Feminism,” “Human Sexuality Education,” “Sociology of Gender,” and “Psychology of Sexuality.”

Emily Depasse therefore cannot pretend that her promotion of deviant behavior and her celebration of herpes are unrelated to the feminist agenda of destroying Judeo-Christian morality and the marriage-based family. She knows exactly what she is doing, and why she is doing it.

 

So how do you suppose Emily Depasse reacted to my examination of her career as the self-proclaimed “Carrie Bradshaw of herpes”? Of course, she claimed to be the victim of “harassment” by “right-wing trolls,” but she did not name me, she did not link me and she did not acknowledge any substantial point of my argument. Nowhere in her self-pitying account of her “harassment” does Emily Depasse acknowledge how her feminist ideology — and her expression of that ideology through her own degenerate behavior — resulted in her becoming infected with an incurable virus. She disavows personal responsibility:

“I never asked for herpes. I never consented to it. It originated from someone I knew well, someone whom I trusted.”

Exactly how did that herpes get into her genitals? The “Sex Lady” acts as if this is profoundly mysterious. There was someone she “knew well” and “trusted,” and this infection in her vagina just “originated,” you see. It was an unfortunate circumstance in which she played no active role.

Feminists talk a lot about “empowerment,” but on closer examination this word seems to be a claim to absolute irresponsibility. The feminist is “empowered” to do or say anything she wants and absolve herself of responsibility for the consequences by blaming the patriarchy. It was the patriarchy that put the herpes virus in Emily Depasse’s genitals, it is the patriarchy which explains why herpes is “stigmatized,” and when people mock feminists for declaring how awesome it is to be infected with herpes, that’s the patriarchy, too. To understand how this works, consider Ella Dawson, the leader of pro-herpes feminism.

“I was the editor of my campus sex magazine. I had some one-night stands. I explored my sexuality and what I wanted, and I met a guy at a party and he was amazing. He was super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant and I fell really hard for him. We started seeing each other and then, three weeks later, I woke up with an outbreak of genital herpes.”
— Ella Dawson, September 2015

See? It’s not her fault. She just “explored her sexuality” and then this guy was “super-charismatic” and — oops! — herpes happened.

In December 2015, Ms. Dawson described how she had been “harassed” by Billy Procida, a member of “the sex-positive community” she dated once. Procida is host of “The Manwhore Podcast: A Sex-Positive Quest for Love where he chats with women he’s hooked up with about sex, dating, sexuality and gender,” and if he ever got near my daughter, he’d be in the hospital or the graveyard. The men in “the sex-positive community” are all despicable and/or dangerous (e.g., Hugo Schwyzer, the Psychotic Professor) and if Billy Procida is typical of the men feminists hang around with, you understand why feminists hate men. Ella Dawson explains:

Want to see a man’s true character? Tell him to shut the f–k up. . . .
Men very rarely see their behavior as harassment, they think they’re just talking. Being told to stop talking feels unnatural and unfair—it’s not like they were being mean. It was a compliment, or they had an opinion to contribute, or they wanted to make a friend. If that makes her uncomfortable, that’s her problem. She’s too sensitive. . . . I don’t understand why she’s telling me to stop talking to her, she’s making such a big deal out of nothing. She’s playing the victim card. I would never harass someone, I believe in gender equality! . . .
I’m tired of explaining to men who reply to every single tweet I make why their uninvited and sustained attention makes me uncomfortable. I’m tired of giving “nice guys” who won’t take a breakup for an answer the benefit of the doubt. I’m tired of victims who speak up being told that they are selfish, or immature, or holding a grudge. I’m tired of it being impossible for women to be heard over the dull roar of men who won’t stop talking. I’m tired of nothing ever changing.

You see? It’s OK for Ella Dawson to talk, talk, talk constantly about sex, sex, sex, but these men in “the sex-positive community” seem to have the crazy idea that feminists want to hear men talk about sex.

No, Mr. Procida, you’re wrong. Feminists don’t want to hear men talk about sex. Feminists never want to hear a man talk about anything (unless he is “super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant,” of course). When feminists talk about “equality,” Mr. Procida, this doesn’t mean you have a right to talk to them, or even look at them. You’re objectifying her with the “male gaze,” the feminist believes, if you admire her without her permission, and if you don’t understand how these strange rules are about “equality,” it’s because you are a man. “Equality” means that feminists can just make up any damn rules they want, and change the rules to suit their passing moods, and they don’t owe you any explanation at all. You are a man, and the role of men in feminism is to “shut the f–k up.”

One almost pities Billy Procida and the other young men like him who think they can negotiate with totalitarians. Neville Chamberlain surrendered Sudetenland to Hitler and called it “peace for our time,” whereas young men surrender to feminists and call this “equality.”

This is why I say I can almost pity Billy Procida and his ilk. If feminists are responsible for their own herpes infections, then men are responsible for their failure to understand what feminism really is. “Feminism is a movement of crazy women, by crazy women, for crazy women.”

Feminists want men to shut up and go away, except when they want men to infect them with herpes. If a woman tells you she’s a feminist, guys, it’s probably safe to assume she already has herpes. Whether or not she is infected with herpes, however, all feminists are infected with crazy, and that kind of craziness is known to be highly contagious and incurable. Emily Depasse and Ella Dawson are a menace to society, spreading an epidemic of feminist insanity that is destroying our nation.





 

 


Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 04.19.16

Posted on | April 19, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: You Might Need A Few Of These For The NY Primary
Da Tech Guy: #BlackLivesMatter Activists Silent As Two Babies Shot (One Fatally) In Two Days
The Political Hat: Out – One Person, One Vote. In – One Warm Body, One Equal Share Of Representation
Michelle Malkin: Buried News Alert – Obama’s Weekend Gitmo Detainee Dump
Twitchy: Factcheck.org Cites Bill Nye’s Fake Degrees To Prove He’s A Scientist
Shark Tank: All Criminal Charges Dropped Against Javier Manjarres
Spiked: “Lena Dunham Is A Big Pile Of Pudding” – The Camille Paglia Interview


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Patriotism Preps For A Comeback
American Thinker: America’s Addiction To Pleasure Hurts Marriage And The Family
Don Surber: Mock Bernie, Get A Letter From A Lawyer
Jammie Wearing Fools: Trump’s “Voterless” Election Myth
Joe For America: Nothing Funnier Than Socialist Bernie Sanders’ Tax Returns
JustOneMinute: Organization Man
Pamela Geller: Colorado Federal Attorney And Other Leaders Hold Seminar On Combating “Anti-Islamic Rhetoric”
Protein Wisdom: Reason? Logic? Rationality? NOT ON THIS CAMPUS, HATERS!
Shot In The Dark: The Red Line
STUMP: Puerto Rico Debt Crisis – Is Bankruptcy A Bailout?
The Jawa Report: Religion of Peaceful Killing
The Lonely Conservative: Ted Cruz Gets The Constitution Like No Other Candidate
The Quinton Report: Pro-Choice Is NOT Pro-Liberty
This Ain’t Hell: Khairuldeen Makhzoomi Booted From Southwest Airlines Flight
Weasel Zippers: UC Berkeley Forced To Cut 500 Jobs After Minimum Wage Hike to $15
Megan McArdle: Your Assessment Of The Election Is Way Off
Mark Steyn: Simple Simon Met A Pieman


Shop Amazon – Mother’s Day Store
Shop Amazon – Now 100+ Dash Buttons

Category: Linkagery

Feminism as Psychological Warfare (Because @FFigureFBust Asked)

Posted on | April 18, 2016 | 28 Comments

While monitoring online feminism, I noticed someone had RT’d @FFigureFBust, posting a cartoon with this feminist “joke”:

Man: “You wear too much makeup.”
Woman: “You consume too much oxygen.”
Man: “It’s just my opinion, you’d look better withou–”
Woman: “So would you. Without oxygen.”
(pause)
Woman: “F–k your opinions.”

 

 
This is a variation of the feminist attack on “mansplaining,” made famous by Rebecca Solnit’s book Men Explain Things to Me. Despite all the caveats and disclaimers with which Ms. Solnit qualified her argument, it can be summarized as feminism’s two-word message to men: “SHUT UP!”

Feminism is ultimately about complete contempt for men, per se. If you are a man, nothing you say is of interest to any feminist. Everything men do is bad and everything men say is wrong. This categorical certainty — the absolute moral and intellectual inferiority of males — is so commonly accepted among feminists that none of them ever question it, because they never even notice it, for the same reason fish don’t notice water.

Saturday I published a 4,000-word exploration of this (“The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity”) showing how anti-male attitudes are fundamental to “feminist theory, which condemns heterosexuality as an oppressive ‘institution’ forcibly imposed on women by the social system of male domination known as patriarchy.”

Feminists believe all women collectively suffer from systemic oppression, and that all men participate in and benefit from this oppression, by which men obtain unjust privilege. It is not necessary for a man to say or do anything harmful in order for feminist to hate him. He is male, and therefore he can never deserve anything except hate. “Being constantly insulted by feminists . . . is something men are expected never to notice.”

Feminist rhetoric is a method of psychological warfare, intended to inspire all women to embrace this contemptuous attitude toward men, and also to demoralize and confuse the male enemy. Feminists deliberately insult men, falsely accusing them of complicity in wrongdoing, and if any man dares object to this kind of anti-male hate propaganda, his protest of innocence will be cited as proof of his guilt (a tactic known as “Kafkatrapping”). This is why feminism is actually not about equality, because if feminists believed men were equal, a man might be permitted to say a word in his own defense. Instead, feminist discourse is a constant stream of accusations against men, who have no right to respond to these insults. Like the accused in Stalin’s “show trials” of the 1930s, men are expected to confess their guilt, to denounce themselves for their crimes as vrag naroda, and to testify against others who were complicit in their counterrevolutionary plots.

So here was this cartoon posted by @FFigureFBust, a typical expression of feminist “humor” in which the punchline is “F–k your opinions.” Let the question be asked, “What kind of man would be such a fool as to tell a woman that she is wearing ‘too much makeup’?” Certainly no wise man would ever say this to a woman, not even to his own wife. However, men often do express a general dislike for “too much makeup,” preferring a more “natural” appearance. Of course, as any woman can explain, what some men praise as the “natural look” usually requires quite a bit of work to achieve, and a woman must be highly skilled in the use of makeup to make it seem as though she isn’t wearing makeup at all.

However, this cartoon isn’t really about makeup, is it?

No, this cartoon is about “SHUT UP!”

The cartoon is intended to depict men generally as clueless and idiotic, and to convey the message that no woman should ever care about any man’s opinion. Feminists will often emphasize this disdain in regard to heterosexual male preferences about women’s appearance and behavior. Whatever it is that a heterosexual man may like or dislike about women, in particular or in general, no feminist ever wants him to say it. This has the effect, of course, of granting feminists an absolute monopoly in terms of offering advice to women. No matter how disastrous the result of following feminist advice may be (e.g., a herpes infection), feminists tell women that the patriarchy is to blame for these bad outcomes.

Now, as soon as I push the “publish” button on this, it will be as if I’ve lit the fuse on a hate-bomb. Some readers will say rude things about @FFigureFBust and, as a result, I will be accused of engaging in “harassment” and condoning “misogyny.” However, you see, it doesn’t matter what I say or do. Nothing will prevent feminists from slandering me, because I am a heterosexual male, after all, and what is feminist rhetoric except an endless slander campaign against heterosexual males?

All I can do is point to examples of feminism’s hateful rhetoric, analyze and describe the significance. My purpose is to inform readers who, although they probably understand that there is something profoundly wrong with feminist ideology, do not have the leisure to engage in this kind of in-depth analysis of feminist rhetoric. Without a proper analysis, however, men might make the mistake of arguing with a feminist, which is futile, because feminism is always a lecture, never a debate.

Well, when I called attention to @FFigureFBust’s feminist “joke,” this resulted in a brief colloquy in which I made the point that “feminists constantly lecture the world about their opinions, and permit no man to say a word in reply.” She asked why I had addressed her, but when I went to reply to that question . . . blocked. So here is your answer, Ms. Horne.

Does she understand my answer? Am I attempting to persuade her that she is wrong? No, because no feminist has ever admitted that she was wrong about anything. Merely by calling herself a feminist, she declares to the world her belief in her own omniscience. A feminist believes she knows everything about everything, and no man knows anything at all.

Here, watch her 17-minute video about feminism:

Has she stated her case persuasively? Would anyone care to transcribe her argument, such as it is? I got about 2 minutes in — “women are closer to my heart and are more relate-able to me” — before my eyes began to glaze over from the effort of trying to decode her British accent. She said something about female genital mutilation and girls being married off at age 11, as if anyone not named Omar or Mohammad might be in favor of such practices. This is sort of like environmentalists who declare they’re in favor of clean water, as if they expect someone to argue against clean water. Feminists are always going on about some obvious atrocity and declaring that anyone who disagrees with them is defending these atrocities. This is why feminists make blatantly false claims about the prevalence of rape (e.g., the 1-in-5 myth), in order to provoke their critics to express doubt about these claims, at which point, feminists accuse their critics of being pro-rape. Feminists believe they are entitled to invent any “fact” that will advance their agenda, and then engage in character assassination against anyone who objects to feminist lies.

The all-time classic of feminist dishonesty was the Great Super Bowl Domestic Violence Hoax of 1993, when it was claimed that Super Bowl Sunday was “the biggest day of the year for violence against women.” There was no evidence for this claim, and yet reporters rushed to print as fact that on the day of the NFL championship, domestic abuse hotlines were “flooded with more calls from victims than on any other day of the year,” to quote the Boston Globe. Christina Hoff Sommers exposed this lie and other examples of feminist myth-making in her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? Yet despite the documented proof that feminists habitually lie, here we are more than 20 years later, still expected to pretend that feminism’s credibility is beyond question!

Never Take Advice From Feminists, unless your goal in life is to become a Crazy Cat Lady, which is one of the few subjects where feminist expertise is useful. “Feminism is a movement of crazy women, by crazy women, for crazy women,” and you should doubt the mental health of any woman who calls herself a feminist. Therefore, never talk to a feminist:

Guys: Learn to take a hint. Learn to walk away.
If a woman tells you she is a feminist, say nothing and walk away.
No feminist wants to hear what a man has to say, and life is too short to waste your time taking to feminists. Just walk away.
Leave feminists alone, and then they can complain about that.

Every day, feminists prove there is no point in arguing with them, and anyone attempting to argue with @FFigureFBust will be blocked. Because she is a feminist, you may be sure that she will never acknowledge what I’ve written here in reply to her question. Feminist “success” requires them to pretend that there is no valid criticism of their ideology, nor any reason why intelligent people should oppose their agenda. Feminism is a cult which claims a monopoly on truth, and no member of the cult can admit the possibility that anyone outside the feminist cult is qualified to dispute this monopolgy. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the silencing of men is necessary to the movement’s triumph. Well, good luck trying to shut me up.

 


Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: The Tax Deadline Cometh

Posted on | April 17, 2016 | 7 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Trying to find a suitable pic for the end of the tax season was tougher than you’d think, since Hollywood seems to prefer the nerd stereotype for accountants of all kinds, but eventually I did find Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) who was a bookkeeper as a child and holds a BS in Accounting from Clemson. I also found former Playmate of the Year Donna Edmondson, who went into tax accounting after a whirlwind career as a Playboy model, and serves as our appetizer this week. As usual, many of the following links are to pics normally considered NSFW, and the management is not responsible for whatever ills befall you because you fail to exercise discretion in your clicking.

Exactly what it says on the label.

Goodstuff leads off this week with Cybill Shepherd, followed by 90 Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress (Tight Buns Edition), and Girls With Guns (Country Girl Style). Animal Magnetism checks in from Japan with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, The Last Tradition submits Elizabeth Hurley and Toccara Jones, and First Street Journal salutes those women in uniform Pulling the Trigger.

EBL’s herd this week includes Michelle Fields, The Bear Is Loose, French 60s Rule 5, and Katrina Kaif.

A View from the Beach offers A Drop of Water with Amanda Cerny, Katy Perry Beats Nuns, Dispatches from Clinton.com, Tanya for Thursday, Weather Girl Wednesday, Good Year Predicted for Chesapeake Crabs, Are You Feeling Lucky, Punk?, “Wild Woman”, Neandertal Y-Chromosome Found Lost (cave girls), and Floron du Jour: Girl with Good Taste Headed for Hoosegow

The DaleyGator’s DaleyBabes this week included Alicia Bachleda-Curus, Joy Bisco, Grace Gealy, Chandra West, Women and Beaches, Asana Mamora, and Jaina Lee Ortiz.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Jaina Ortiz, his Vintage Babe is Peggie Castle, and Sex in Advertising is handled this week by Victoria’s Secret. At Dustbury, it’s Sannie Carlson and Ming-Na Wen.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! There will be no Rule 5 Sunday next week; we’ll resume on May 1 with the Blue Shirt Special Double-Dip Edition!


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

The Trashification of America

Posted on | April 17, 2016 | 30 Comments

“Family values” in the Obama Age:

Two women face charges after an infant was left in a hot car outside of a strip club in Tennessee as the child’s mother was onstage for an audition, according to multiple reports.
Kelsey McMurtry, 24, was auditioning at Deja Vu Showgirls in downtown Nashville while her daughter sat outside in a car with the windows rolled up around 4 p.m. Thursday, police told WKRN. Passersby noticed the girl and called authorities.
In a warrant, officials said it was 72 degrees outside when officers arrived and temperatures inside the car had likely topped 100 degrees. The girl was wearing a heavy coat and drenched with sweat, WKRN reported. Witnesses estimated she spent at least 30 minutes in the car.
She was taken to a hospital for treatment, where the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services responded to care for her.
At the scene an officer spoke with McMurtry’s friend, 19-year-old Summer Taylor, who said she had an eye on the child while her mother auditioned, according to WSMV. However, witnesses told police she never left the strip club in the 30 minutes the child was outside.
Police arrested McMurtry and Taylor on charges of child neglect. Authorities also charged McMurtry with criminal impersonation after she allegedly lied about her name in an apparent effort to avoid an outstanding warrant, WSMV reported.

(Via Memeorandum.) Here’s a question: Does this infant not have a father? Or does Kelsey McMurtry have no relatives who could help her? Of course, we are two generations into the Welfare State’s project of dismantling the traditional family, so it’s possible Kelsey McMurtry’s parents and siblings and aunts and uncles are all part of the debris.

This is the human wreckage created by liberalism — people without functional kinship networks, without moral values, with no sense of purpose or meaning in their lives. In other words, Democrat voters.

 

Category: Crime
« go back — keep looking »