About these ads

>Paul Elam’s Vanishing Post: Blaming and Mocking Rape Victims

>

Well, this is interesting. Last night, idly perusing the latest posts by blogs on my Enemies List I noticed a new post by Paul Elam. It was a doozy, and I don’t mean that in a good way. Under the seemingly innocuous title “Challenging the Etiology of Rape,” the post mocked and blamed rape victims for the crime of getting raped. I copied the most obnoxious bits onto my computer, planning to write a post about it.

Now it appears Elam has deleted the post, and the comments associated with it. [NOTE: Apparently the vanishing post was actually the result of an issue with the web host. It's now up again. On to the content of his post.]

Here, minus a little of his rhetorical huffing and puffing, is the basic thesis of his post: 

I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m..  Sometimes … these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?…

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it. …

[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

What’s there to say to that? It’s odious, simply odious. Anyone who makes such an argument thereby destroys whatever tiny bit of credibility, whatever moral authority, they once might have had to speak about rape, domestic violence, or, really any violence at all against women or men. Anyone who makes such an argument forfeits the right to be taken seriously on the issue of rape, or, really, on any issue at all.

By Elam’s logic, any man who gets drunk and hooks up with a woman he’s only recently met is “damn near demanding” to be falsely accused of rape, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [ACCUSE] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam’s logic, any man who gets himself sent to prison through an act of his own is “damn near demanding” to be raped, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam’s logic, any man who works in a profession where occupational injuries are relatively more common is “damn near demanding” to be injured or killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH … neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam’s logic, any man who joins the Armed Forces is “damn near demanding” to be killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [KILL ME] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam’s logic, any man who crosses a busy street without waiting for the “walk” sign is “damn near demanding” to be hit by a car, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [RUN ME OVER] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam’s logic, any man who does anything at all that might possibly increase the odds of anything bad happening to him is “damn near demanding” to face horrific consequences, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [HARM] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”

By Elam’s logic, neither men nor women should ever leave the house.

Oh, but wait, most accidents happen at home (just as most rapes involve people already known to the victim, not random strangers at bars). So anyone staying at home is “damn near demanding” to trip and fall down the stairs, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [INJURE] ME neon sign glowing above [his or her] empty little narcissistic head.”

I guess we’re all empty-headed conniving bitches. Each and every one of us on planet earth. But the only people Elam thinks to apply his logic to are female rape victims. That says a lot, and none of it good.

NOTE: Elam has (among other things) banned me from commenting on his site, and relagates all critical comments on his website to a special board for “feminists and manginas,” so any comments he makes here will be deleted.

NOTE #2: Just to forestall what could become an endless and pointless debate in the comments: Elam is not saying, as he puts it, that women “are literally asking men to rape them” — that is, walking up and saying “rape me please.” That would be absurd. He is speaking more colloquially, as am I.

About these ads

Posted on November 14, 2010, in antifeminism, hypocrisy, misogyny, MRA, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 67 Comments.

  1. >I think that some of the most odious statements can come from some of the most seemingly sensitive and well-meaning people. For example, it might improve the long-term safety of a potential victim if he or she behaved more modestly and showed better judgment and discretion. But because no one wants to be accused of being a victim-blamer, because they want to seem sensitive, they refrain from making such a common-sense statement, elevating their love of their own reputation above and beyond their concern for a potential victim's safety. Instead, they self-servingly state (under the pretext of sensitivity to victims) that a potential victim should live it up, sex it up, drink up, party hard and damn the consequences. The victims will then have a perpetrator to blame after the fact, but a victim's moral superiority after the fact is a small comfort (if any) compared to the prospect of not being victimized in the first place.The politically correct crowd wants to portray every act of sexual violence as a matter of pure chance. In terms of security, they equate the utility of being modest with that of being lascivious. But in fact, there really is a correlation between less reckless behavior and a lower likelihood of being victimized. A libertine, self-focused and politically-correct society doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. The result is a pervasive and harmful attitude of recklessness that puts every potential victim at a far greater risk than otherwise.

  2. >And the other side of the coin, John, is that men get angry at the knowledge that there are women who DO treat potentially dangerous situations as exactly that and caution other women about it, and they lay the blame upon women and "our misandrist society that treats all men as potential rapists". Seems there's a very fine line between being considered modest, showing better judgment and discretion, and being considered misandrist.Perhaps my choosing not to get falling down drunk, making out with a guy all night long and then going to his apartment at 2:00 am would be considered as showing good judgment, but my choosing not to go to a guy's apartment for dinner or after dinner on a first date for the same reasons that I choose not to do the former would be considered misandrist because I would be treating him as a potential rapist.So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't…you get blamed either way.

  3. >Also, his little extras, which I have bolded, "…so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass", leads me to the conclusion that he's not just trying to make a 'well-intentioned though not politically correct' public service announcement.

  4. >"But in fact, there really is a correlation between less reckless behavior and a lower likelihood of being victimized. "No, there isn't. It would be nice if there were. But there isn't. It would be nice to be able to go through life and lower my chances of being raped through practicing "less reckless" behaviour. But there isn't. There just isn't any such behaviour that will incredibly lower my chances. Why? The problem is that – ding, ding, ding, women already do that. A lot. And, it doesn't matter because "stranger danger" is pure bullshit when it comes to rape. Rape is more likely to occur by friends, bfs/husbands and/or family of the victim, and in the victim's "safe" places e.g. their own home. By your logic, women should never ever go home or interact with family or have friends since this would effectively "prevent" rape through the victim's behaviour. As Melissa from Shakesville says about her own rape (debunking several of the rape prevention):"Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; hardly scantily clad (another phrase appearing once in the article), I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent—I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn't raped. The difference was not in what I was doing. The difference was the presence of a rapist."http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/01/dear-ladies-please-stop-getting.htmlMost rapes are this situation than the "stranger" rape. The difference is not what the victim was doing but the presence of a rapist. My big question to you John is if a man gets raped, is it also his fault?

  5. >…..women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes … these women end up being the "victims" of rape.A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason.We know, she was drunk, but he was drunk too. Of course this does not count by the laws of 'equality' of any feminist country and there is the real possibility for a man to become a victim of a false rape allegation under such circumstances.My advice as MRA to all men is to prevent such a situation from the beginning on. Stay away from such questionable places like bars full with drunk women inside and do not join strange parties full with drugs.Do not socialize with drunk and crazy psycho-girls and never invite them to your own private rooms.It's a good idea to spend your money you earn with your hard work for something else.Keep always in your mind, whatever happens, only the man will be kept responsible and never the woman. That's not fair, but this is the law, biased against men.If she says YES, say NO.

  6. >"A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason."No, Yohan. A person does not consent to be forced to have intercourse by accepting a drink, going home with someone, or by consenting to any other activity other than sex.

  7. >@SandyShe said YES, and after some weeks she regrets and says she said YES only because she was drunk or because she took some drugs.She now says, she should have said NO but she does not even remember anymore exactly what happened… the usual date-rape story of a typical psycho crybaby. She says, he says…And what do you expect now police investigators and judges to do? To believe her or to believe him?—–As I said already in my posting above, the responsibility in any case due to single-sided feminist laws in Western countries is with the man. Always. Under any circumstances. Feminist laws treat women like children considering them unable to make a clear and final decision. On the other side, feminist laws expect men to act sober under any circumstances and to investigate almost like psychiatrists or judges, if the given consent – YES – of a woman could mean MAYBE 'not really' and is not a YES beyond reasonable doubts.I don't think, that's fair.Even judges and bar associations have frequent questions about how to understand such 'rape' laws. Arguments are coming up about voice recording and consent forms.My advice as MRA for all men is to stay on the 'safe side'. Avoid any contact with such drunk/drug abusing women in bars and parties from the beginning on. Don't go there. Do not socialize with them. And of course, never bring such a girl to your private rooms. PREVENT such a risky situation for you by avoiding any personal contact with such females -this will reducing your risk of being falsely accused considerable. You have not been there – not a bad argument for your defense. ——Of course, as man, anytime, you still might become a victim of a false rape allegation solely out of the bad mood of a crazy female. The problem is that such crimes remain unpunished or – sometimes only – the female offender is getting away with a ridiculous lenient sentence.Feminism is very protective to female offenders even in case of serious wrongdoing against a totally innocent man. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450374/Two-months-girl-rape-lie-ruined-cabbies-life.htmlhttp://www.nerve.com/archived/blogs/teenage-girl-gets-2-month-sentence-for-false-rape-allegation

  8. >Are you referring to the Nov. 13th post? If so, it wasn't Paul who deleted it. It seems to be a computer error by his hosting company.Here's the post, since feminists – as you've proven – are better at speculating than learning:"I can’t believe this shit. I wrote the web hosting company and told them everything after the 10th was missing. They didn’t even check out a back up from the 13th, they just wrote me back after taking what I imagine was a 10 second look at the site and told me everything was fine.I have asked them to pull a copy from the 13th and restore the site up to that point.Let’s see what happens."- http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/11/10/shameless/#comment-6300Perhaps if you thought things through, you wouldn't be in this embarrassing situation now, would you? See how helpful thinking before speaking is, feminist?Remember, before you open your yap:"Think, then speak." There's a mantra for you that's easy and concise – even you should master it in no time flat!

  9. >Oh, would you look at that, my comment displaying Paul's complaint accidentally went missing. Don't worry, we'll rectify that situation in no time flat!"I can’t believe this shit. I wrote the web hosting company and told them everything after the 10th was missing. They didn’t even check out a back up from the 13th, they just wrote me back after taking what I imagine was a 10 second look at the site and told me everything was fine.I have asked them to pull a copy from the 13th and restore the site up to that point.Let’s see what happens."- http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/11/10/shameless/#comment-6300Poor David, he must be very embarrassed right now.

  10. >Uh, I didn't suggest I knew whether the vanishing post was deleted or a computer glitch. That hardly changes the point of my post, which was devoted to the content of the post. I'll edit the post accordingly. As for your comment, it was caught in the spam filter. As I note in the comment policy here, this happens a lot. I can't turn the filter off, but I unfilter them as soon as I see them.

  11. >Speaking of vanishing, I could have sword that yesterday the end of this post said that, with regard to deleting Paul Elam's comments, you would make an exception here for any comments explaining himself.Oh yeah, nice job totally misrepresenting that article.

  12. >I said I would make a exception for any comment from him that explained where his post had gone. Now that we know, there's no need for him to explain.

  13. >Im not sure that women using the promise of sex to scam drinks/free nights out is all that much of a predictor of rape anyway, I've never heard it brought up by an official source. It does stand to reason that if a person is routinely pretending to offer something and takes payment up front only to renege that from time to time the scam will back fire on the scam artist because there are crazy people out there, but men are often scammed by women, its happening in every bar and club, and a violent outcome is very rare. The politically correct position on rape infantalises women IMO. The story that Spearhead recently covered in which a group of women all became convinced that they had been mass spiked, the investigation as is usual with spiking claims, the investigation turned up with nothing but the alcohol that the women had chosen to drink themselves and the upshot was the state banning the drink itself. Not a word about personal responsibility or feminisms role in creating the drink spiking mass hysteria in the first place.

  14. >Here are three typical rapes, Im going to quote "The thinking Police Man" from his blog."…the last three rape allegations that have occurred in my area. The last one came from a young woman of 20 who met a 17 year old boy in a pub. They had been drinking and had been acquainted for an hour when they went outside into the pub car park to have consensual sex. The young woman wanted the boy to use a condom but he didn't have one and they had sex without. She then reported the rape. I fully understand that at any point this woman can say no and she was quite sensible insisting that he wore a condom. The problem is that what jury is going to convict a 17 year old boy of rape in these circumstances?The second case was a University student who got very drunk at a University function and woke up in bed with another student in the morning. She believed that she had had sex with him but could not remember. She reported this two days later. The boy was arrested and claimed consensual sex had taken place. He was by no means a sexual predator and was in fact pretty meek and mild.The third case was an estranged husband and wife. The husband would come round the house to visit the children and then the couple regularly had a drink and smoked cannabis. They also regularly had sex. On one occasion the woman claimed that she was raped as they had had sex and she had not consented to it on that occasion. The husband was arrested and claimed they had had consensual sex with his wife at least 20 times since he had left the marital home and he had never had sex with her against her will."http://thethinkingpoliceman.blogspot.com/2010/03/rape-debate.htmlIf anyone has a good source about using the promise of sex to scam free drinks resulting in rape can they link it? Because Ive never heard of one.

  15. thevagrantsvoice

    >Hello again, Mr. Futrelle. Pardon me for popping back here–you may remember me as Wanderer–but I was struck by a pique of nostalgia and I've been wandering back to a few places I hung out at a little while ago.Thus, I apologize for hoppin' back here, but I am curious, are there any other parts of Mr. Elam's article you saved, or just that one snippet? I don't mean to impugn your honesty, but for all I know the article could have been meant as satire/not to be taken literally (as was the "Bash a Violent Bitch" thing a while ago). As with the other example, it may be little defense, but I'd think it would be nice to know for sure. Besides, it couldn't hurt to have an original comment on hand–if Mr. Elam ever reposts it if it's not recovered by his hosting service, you'll be able to note any differences in the versions.Secondly, although this is your blog, and far be it from me to tell you have to run it, I must respectfully disagree with your refusal to allow Mr. Elam to comment here. As the old saying goes, 'two wrongs don't make a right'–and I say this not to be pious or preachy, but simply as a piece of advice. Sinking down to your opponent's level won't help you convince anyone, but rising above them can win you many friends. If you allow Mr. Elam to comment here even while he prevents you from commenting openly on his site, you might find yourself making much more convincing arguments for the many people on the outskirts of the MRM who nonetheless don't identify with it fully–as I said on another site, folks like me, who are uncomfortable with both feminism AND the MRM.Still, this is your blog, and I apologize for buttin' in. Thanks for having me.

  16. >Wanderer, glad to see you back. I don't have any more of Elam's post than the bit I quoted. The stuff I left out (see the ellipses) wasn't substantive. His post wasn't satire, and neither, really, was "bash a violent bitch" — the only reason he said he wasn't "serious" about that one was b/c it would get guys arrested if they did it. If Elam had merely banned me, I'd let him post. But he went way beyond that, so he'll have to post on his own blog. He's the only person I've "banned." (I put it in quotes b/c blogger doesn't let you ban anyone; I'll just delete whatever he posts here.)

  17. >Thats not what he was saying at all Christine, I read the thing, he pointed to the fact that only a minority of men will rape and claimed that women that that use the promise of sex to scam men are taking a chance because of a minority of men that are out there.

  18. >Which is a valid point, if anyone makes a habit of scamming people in bars the chances are that they going to run into trouble. It will backfire in men a lot sooner and much more often, more rarely would it lead to some negative consequence for a woman. Women use sex, children and gender stereotypes to scam men, in bars, clubs and courts. Occasionally it backfires and you see murders, murder suicides and perhaps rapes.

  19. thevagrantsvoice

    >Eoghan, that sounds like a fairly substantive difference. Pardon me for asking, but would you have a copy of the article itself on hand? I don't mean to impugn your honesty either, but with this sort of thing it's important to let what was actually said to speak for itself.

  20. thevagrantsvoice

    >Er, and in reference to what you said, Mr. Futrelle, I would say Mr. Elam's behavior would make it even more convincing were you to let him post here. After all, if he has committed such grievous offenses against you, proving yourself above that would make you look all the more magnaminous.Still, like I said, it's not my business, and pardon me for double-posting as well (we can't edit comments, can we?). Besides, have you even received any comments from Mr. Elam? I don't think he comes here anymore, so I suppose it's not actually a problem–no harm, no foul and all that.

  21. >VagrantsvoiceI don't have a copy. Perhaps Paul will repost it. The piece does use hyperbole and language that I think is designed to bait the politically correct into responding exactly as David and others here has done, but the core of the message and logic was as I describe above.I think the point of the piece was to shock and shake up certain politically correct speech and thought codes that restrict us from pointing out certain truths about rape.

  22. >Christine: "In Elam's article, there wasn't a question of whether the woman said yes or no. He is saying that if you buy her drinks, she gets drunk, makes out with you, and goes back to your room with you, then take what you want from her as she deserves it." Actually, that's not what he said. He was saying that women who do that are so stupid they "deserve" to be raped — and mocked, evidently. Still, it was about as close to a rape apologia as you can get without literally being a rape apologia. Yohan in one of his comments seemed to imply something more along the lines of what you're saying. I think he was trying to say something about women changing their minds afterwards, but he seemed to suggest that if a woman goes home with a guy she's essentially consented to sex. I think the fact that he sort of "forgot" to mention consent speaks volumes.

  23. >Eoghan, if you think I've misinterpreted Elam's piece, how exactly have I done that?

  24. >Well, I think that we shouldn't be representing or misrepresenting the piece until its back up, as someone else has pointed out David, that your depiction of Paul Elam's piece on Jezebele's pro domestic violence stance was at odds with the intended meaning of the actual piece.

  25. >Hi DavidI posted my interpretation of the meaning of the piece in two or three posts above. It was supposed to shock but the logic, that of you are repeatedly using sex to scam people, or any means for that matter, chances are that it will eventually backfire because there are all kinds of people out there.Like with murder suicides, every one in 100,000 or whatever times a woman uses children and the courts as a weapon, it might backfire. Thats not blaming thats just common sense.

  26. >My depiction of his "Bash a violent bitch" post was accurate. I quoted it accurately. I mentioned that he said he wasn't "serious" — and that immediately after saying that he went on in a way that indicated that he actually was "serious." In any case, even if he was joking, it was still a vile piece of writing. As is this latest one.

  27. >His piece is up again. The link is in my post, 2nd paragraph. I've also added a brief second note at the end to forestall a possible derailing discussion here.

  28. >No, it wasn't accurate David, "bash a violent bitch month" was a satirical anti domestic violence piece that was used to highlight Jezebells pro domestic violence piece, the common attitude that domestic violence against men doesn't really count and the fact that many women exploit the fact that most men will not hit a woman back.And perhaps the correct response to being threatened with a knife by a jazebele writer is to knock her out, thats better than the politically correct choice, standing there while allowing someone to threaten to stab you just because societal and politically correct norms dictate that as being the right course of non action.

  29. >of course, a man that knocks out a jezebelle journalist thats is threatening to stab him, is likely going to jail for having the audacity to defend himself.

  30. thevagrantsvoice

    >Mr. Futrelle, I have to ask, has Mr. Elam changed the post significantly, or is it the same one you originally saw?

  31. >David, your addition.."NOTE #2: Just to forestall what could become an endless and pointless debate in the comments: Elam is not saying, as he puts it, that women "are literally asking men to rape them" — that is, walking up and saying "rape me please." That would be absurd. He is speaking more colloquially, as am I."I'm confused now, if you are acknowledging that Paul Elam is not actually saying what you said he said, what is the actual point that you are trying to make here?

  32. >@EoghanI'm absolutely disgusted by these MRA comments that the women has no right to say no and deserves to be raped, especially yours. I mean, Paul Elam is clearly a sociopath, but the fact you support and agree Eoghan speaks volumes. He's saying women deserve to be raped! Why are you trying to excuse or dismiss it?! You claim to be a somewhat reasonable MRA who cares about men's rights and discrimination against them yet, surprise(!), you're a rape apologist. I will probably not even bother with you from now on but this particular statement needed commenting:"The politically correct position on rape infantalises women IMO. "That's hilarious. Or it would be, if I thought rape was funny. And you don't think that making women completely responsible i.e. through modifying their behaviour such as wearing "modest" clothes, infantilizes men? The converse of victim-blaming, is men cannot be responsible for their desire, impulses, etc. You know who can't control their behaviour and impulses? Babies. If men can't control themselves, then victim-blaming sets them all up as potentially rapists. Obvy I don't believe that men are unable to control themselves nor that victims are to blame, but apparently you do! So Eoghan, I guess you can explain to your MRA buddies why you think all men are rapists.Also, how does that fit in with male rape victims? Would you say to them that they're responsible for being victimized? Seems like you guys have a real double standard:- rape is genderized and male victims are marginalized and deserve the same rights and services as women victims- rape isn't real and all (female!) victims are to blame even if they are raped and deserve itPlus, you're rape stories are decidely bias – since we don't have the women's POV, you're just speculating on what really happened and (amazingly) it fits with your world view. E.g. the woman in the first could have said no when he didn't have a condom, and he forced her to anyways. Oh, right – she's not allowed to say no anymore. WRONG! Plus, the fact he's 17 at a bar – com'n how made up is that?Do you want me to link some rape stories from the women's POV? Actually I'm not going to do that, because having some total asshole who has no idea what it's like to be raped(!) explaining why the victims are in fact to blame and/or wasn't really rape is sickening and definitely wrong.

  33. >Just reading through the comment section on a voice for men. Someone brought up another very important point that politically correct thought and speech codes deem offensive. The correlation between men that commit violent sex crimes against women and their being abused sexually or otherwise by women as children. It seems that in a number of ways, feminist magical thinking and politically correct thought and speech codes hinder us in understanding and treating the problem of rape properly.

  34. >David (about Yohan) I think the fact that he sort of "forgot" to mention consent speaks volumes. You are always turning all and everything (deliberately? purposely? or out of stupidity?) around what I say. I said: If she says YES, say NO!And my comment again, exactly the same text!My advice as MRA to all men is to prevent such a situation from the beginning on. Stay away from such questionable places like bars full with drunk women inside and do not join strange parties full with drugs.Do not socialize with drunk and crazy psycho-girls and never invite them to your own private rooms. You got it now?It is my right to say NO!If I (the man) say NO – and I have the right to do this even to a woman in a feminist country, call me a misogynist for that – I need not to ask her for her consent. Consent for what? Consent from her because I say NO to her?You got it now?There is also another thread in your blog with a similar topic, and I said clearly the best is not to socialize with all these drunk psycho-girls. If they accuse you for rape and you can prove you have not been there, that's for sure a very good position to defend yourself against false rape allegations.

  35. >Eoghan: "if you are acknowledging that Paul Elam is not actually saying what you said he said, what is the actual point that you are trying to make here?"Paul Elam is saying what I said he said. Only someone who is completely misreading or deliberately misrepresenting what I said would say otherwise. I'm tired of "debating" with people who do this, so I'm pretty much done with "debating" you.

  36. >thevagrantsvoice: As far as I can tell it's the exact same piece.

  37. >David and TecAs usual its straw man arguments, changing the meaning, being deliberately obtuse and attacking something other than what was actually said or meant you are same people that are so quick to accuse people of "rape apology" that protect female abusers and oppress their victims to suit their agenda, same old feminist story.

  38. thevagrantsvoice

    >Ah, I see. thank you.

  39. >ape and rape hysteria as a political platform and a means to persecute a group is nothing new, it has been used against jews, blacks and white heterosexual males and all done by variations of the same movement, progressivism. Feminists couldn't give a flying fuck about rape victims if they cant be used as political ammunition. When its a child thats been raped by a woman, they would bury him at the bottom of a lake rather than let him exist, because he's not a useful rape victim.Rape of women is at least common as rape of men, women, according to egalitarian studies that use feminist methods rape as often as men. Rape is just a political tool to feminism.

  40. >The real rape apologists, in my opinion, are feminist ideologues, people who attack the legitimacy of the notion that one should take sensible precautions in order to reduce one's chances of being victimized. Such ideologues often dogmatically equate well-intended safety advisories with victim blaming.[*]These ideologues are the unwitting enablers of rapists, because they lure potential rape victims into a state of heightened vulnerability by trying to justify unsafe behaviors that put potential victims at greater risk.Source:"VSU Police Department Removes Absurd Sexual Assault Prevention Tips"By Amanda HessWashington City PaperFebruary 5, 2010http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/02/05/vsu-police-department-removes-absurd-sexual-assault-prevention-tips/

  41. >You're seriously telling us that you think VSU should be telling women that unless they gouge out the eyes of would-be rapists while they're driving, "the alternative is your fault if you do not act."

  42. >@David Futrelle:"You're seriously telling us that you think VSU should be telling women that unless they gouge out the eyes of would-be rapists while they're driving, 'the alternative is your fault if you do not act.'"I'm saying what my comment said.

  43. >Well, John, the "source" you use to prove this: "Such ideologues often dogmatically equate well-intended safety advisories with victim blaming" doesn't actually prove that. What is shows is an example of a school getting rid of a ridiculous and counterproductive "safety advisory" that contains that questionable and, yes, victim-blaming bit I quoted about eye-gouging.

  44. >Eoghan said… David and TecAs usual its straw man arguments, changing the meaning, being deliberately obtuse and attacking something other than what was actually said There is hardly anything I can add to this comment.I always tell Western men to stay away from this strange US-dating-scenario – which includes one-night stands with unknown women in private rooms, plenty of alcohol, drugs etc. etc.I always tell Western men, in case should such women approach you, to be firm and to say NO. Not even willing to try. Too risky.Now David is telling me, I am not mentioning anything about 'consent' from these poor girls…Do I need to ask a woman to give me her consent, if I say NO to her? And if I say NO to her without her consent I am a misogynist or what?That's crazy, that's feminism at its finest.It's like if a man has even no right anymore to say NO to a woman.

  45. >Yohan, I was referring to this, in which you seemed to suggest that agreeing to go to a room with a guy = consenting to sex:"A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason."I said nothing about men saying "no." Obviously men have the exact same right to say no, and have that "no" respected, as women do.

  46. >@David Futrelle:"Well, John, the 'source' you use to prove this: "Such ideologues often dogmatically equate well-intended safety advisories with victim blaming" doesn't actually prove that."Prove? It's my opinion. If you look in the comments section, you'll see some people who agree that the feminists were over-reacting, such as this one:http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/02/05/vsu-police-department-removes-absurd-sexual-assault-prevention-tips/#comment-40423

  47. >@David Futrelle: "Yohan, I was referring to this, in which you seemed to suggest that agreeing to go to a room with a guy = consenting to sex:"[Quoting Yohan:] "A woman who says YES and agrees to go with her new boyfriend to his private rooms at 2:00 AM the same night cannot be considered to be a victim of 'rape', if she regrets it a few weeks later suddenly out of whatever reason."Seemed to suggest, eh? Yohan "seemed." On a feminist's blog. Break out the handcuffs!A more reasonable interpretation of Yohan's comment is that if a woman says yes — referring to SEX — and then acts on her consent, going home with him and having consensual sex, then there's still nothing to prevent her from regretting her consensual act after the fact and calling it rape. If a false allegation of rape like this CAN happen, then it probably does, and it's an injustice that the woman enjoys a feminist-enabled spectrum between impunity at one extreme and a slap on the wrist at the other.

  48. >Feminists are very skillful in distorting all what you write or say, this blog is a good example.For what reason will a drunk woman in a bar say YES to a drunk man who is asking her to come with him (asking her to go with him for what?) and she agrees and goes with him at 0200AM to his private rooms in USA?When I wrote my comment I was never ever thinking for one moment about anything else but a one-night-stand with the full consent of both of them.However the law is tricky and to do exactly what I mention above – a one night stand with an unknown girl from a bar or party – is highly risky for the man.The drunk man is responsible and the drunk woman is not responsible for all what will happen between both of them. That's not fair, but this is the US-law.Consent? What consent is that if you can recall your consent days or even weeks later?The only solution I know and I tell this as MRA to every Western man is PREVENTION.Men cannot trust such a given consent by a woman. YES from her might mean NO, and this is even a headache for judges and bar associations. She says, he says…PREVENTION means for me as man to reject ALL sex-contact-offers in bars and during parties.To say YES and to mean NO – The law indeed treats women like small children, responsible for nothing what they say and do.Therefore, under no circumstances go with women to 'somewhere' and do not invite them to your private rooms.Say NO, even if she says YES.This is the best solution and the safest way to go for a man, just my opinion.Should any psycho-girl show up and is accusing you falsely for rape, it is VERY difficult to say I did not do that if you were indeed together with her.If you can prove however, you have not been with her but somewhere else, this is a argument, which cannot be dismissed easily even by biased investigators.The Duke case comes in my mind. Nifong, DA. There was one certain guy (Seligman?) accused for rape, but he made a phonecall with his girlfriend at that time and after he was in a taxi, using an ATM which took his picture and time-stamp and even he was captured on a video showing him leaving or entering the campus. – Clearly innocent. Legal expenses (for all of them totally) = USD 5 million!Nifong, the DA is gone, but…What happened with the poor girl, the 'victim of rape'? A crime out of her fantasy which never took place?She was writing a book about her 'experiences'.

  49. >Manhood Academy answers Paul Elam's intellectual cowardice: http://goo.gl/ryAYn

  50. >@Yohan "The drunk man is responsible and the drunk woman is not responsible for all what will happen between both of them. That's not fair, but this is the US-law." Not true, US rape law language is gender neutral. A woman who has sex with someone too drunk to consent has broken the law just as much as a man who does the same thing. I would advise you to stop talking about US law, as you clearly know absolutely nothing about it. On the Duke case, the defendent's are suing the city for the prosecutor's misconduct and are likely to collect the damages. "even by biased investigators" It was, in fact, the police who played a central role in getting the charges dismissed here. Do you assume that the existence of people falsely accused of murder or robbery means that no murders or robberies occur and most people that claim to have witnessed them are liars? Congratulaions, you managed to find a single solid false rape accusation. Now, what about cases like Roman Polanski, where a rapist does not face punishment and gets massive social pity? What about Charlie Sheen who has had multiple arrests for assaulting his girlfriend and still has a prime time show? What about OJ Simpson and Jack Abbott, who also published books?

  51. >Even the name of the law is not gender-neutral. VAWA means violence against women act. MRAs know how gender-neutral laws are executed.You again fail to mention the legal fees in USA, and if you are unable to pay for defense and experts you are guilty even if you are innocent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_caseRoman Polanski is a good example of a rich celebrity, who is able to pay for defense for a crime committed in USA, his case is complicated as he is not an US-citizen and he had left US territory. Such extradictions are not easy to handle and I wonder how frequently USA is extradicting its own (very rich) citizens to other countries.His case however is exposing a ridiculous US-justice system, as the plea bargain makes it possible to get away with lenient sentences, but the plea bargain is also misused against people, who cannot pay for their legal defense.The victim files lawsuits 10 years later to extort money from him and is claiming this is for remaining silent. 20 years later the victim claims that the event had been blown all out of proportion.He left 1978, but extradiction was started 2005, and Switzerland decided this year not to follow the extradiction request of the USA because of missing documents.http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3720836.eceA mother of three accused Roman Polanski of rape when she was 13 and caused him to become a fugitive from America. Now she says he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice….Even Samantha Geimer – the 13-year-old with whom Polanski had unlawful sex – her lawyer and the prosecuting attorney agree that the director was justified in fleeing rather than face an indeterminate jail term, possibly as long as 50 years. The sentence was about to be meted out by a judge who – all the lawyers involved acknowledge – had corrupted the legal process and was more concerned with his own image than with the law or justice. So much about US-justice…

  52. >@Yohan, I did respond to one of your comments about legal fees in detail in a different post, perhaps you missed that I pointed out that poor defendents have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to an attorney and legal fees paid for by the state if they cannot afford one. This is well established US law and is required to be disclosed at all arrests (the right to an attorney is part of the Miranda Warning). There is not such thing as a criminal defendent being denied any council or fee payment in the US, unless the defendent specifically waives these right and has a competancy trial before a judge on the matter.The victim in the Polanski case did not recant her story, that he drugged her and raped her both vaginally and anally while she told him to stop. What she said was that she wished that the case would no longer be pursued so that she would not have to deal with it anymore. That is a much different statement. The judge did not 'corrupt the legal process'. In accepting a plea bargain, the judge is NEVER required to accept the prosecutor's recommendation of sentencing. That is what the judge did in this case, insist that a low plea bargain for a brutal rape was not going to get him the minimum sentence for what he plead guilty for. It is, in fact, one of the central duties of a US judge to deal with sentencing, exactly what the judge did in this case. Polanski pled guilty to the crime he was to be extradited for and for which he was sentenced. Not only that, but he plead to a charge far less serious than the actual crime. Stop engaging in rape apologism in an attempt to minimize his crimes and blame the victim. Tell me, how much time do you think he should get for drugging and raping a child?

  53. >As we all know legal assistance by the state for indigent men is not very effective. Worldwide. For sure legal procedures with aggressive lawyers and experts are nowhere else so expensive than in the USA. Anyway, I am not living there, why shall I care.The Polanski case got much attention outside the USA, as he is not an US-citizen and very rich. Yes, he did this crime in USA, but the way how USA justice was handling his case over its borders was questioned by many. Polanski left USA, nobody stopped him to do that and the case become international.The entire legal procedure in USA was far away to be called transparent, and a lot of money often creates 'silence', regardless if the accusation is right or wrong.The plea bargain procedure is not allowed within the justice systems of most European countries. It is considered often to be like a lottery. As you said yourself, you never know what the judge will decide.If you are innocent but indigent and accused, with a plea bargain you might be out of jail quicker than being innocent and fighting it out in courts.The documents which Switzerland requested from US justice to send Polanski back to USA were not complete – and without any explication why they were not complete – which shows something had to be hidden to outsiders.Stop engaging in rape apologism in an attempt to minimize his crimes and blame the victim. I gave you merely a link to an well-known article also mentioned in wikipedia, so you see not everybody shares your opinion and the other side of a story. This alone should not make me a 'rape apologist' (whatever this word could mean)MRAs generally want to see laws where both crimes, rape and false rape allegation are subject to the same punishment. Tell me, how much time do you think he should get for drugging and raping a child? In European courts it will be something from 5 to 10 years. In Sweden the limit is up to 10 years, in Germany I think it is 12 or 15 years.In Japan, a US citizen, who committed a similar crime spent 5 years in jail, after his release he filed a lawsuit against the Japanese Ministry of Justice complaining about harsh treatment with the help of US lawyers. Interesting that US-human rights do-gooders said nothing about the Japanese victim.

  54. >@Yohan. An entertainment site linked to by wikipedia? Now I know for sure that it is far more credible than the court documents, police reports, and actual statements given. Thanks for that (<-all sarcasm).

  55. >It's not an entertainment link, it ishttp://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3720836.eceA section of THE TIMES, UK, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

  56. >"Anyway, I am not living there, why shall I care." This was exactly the point of one of my earlier comments. It is fine if you know nothing about the US legal system. No one knows about every legal system in the world. The problem though, is that you insist on talking about US law when you do not understand even the very basics of the US legal system."The entire legal procedure in USA was far away to be called transparent, and a lot of money often creates 'silence', regardless if the accusation is right or wrong." All court documents in the US are a matter of public record. Any person walking in to the courthouse or library off of the street has access to them. Some of the depositions in the Polanski case can even be found on the internet. "As we all know legal assistance by the state for indigent men is not very effective. Worldwide." This actually varies widely amoung US districts. States which encourage or mandate certain amounts of pro bono time from lawyers have more effective council. In addition, some districts have moved away from a set public defender (particularly for felonies) to having volunteer council. In this model, local attorneys volunteer to work these cases with fees paid to themselves and the state picks up other court costs. This model greatly equalizes the quality of council and is very effective. In addition, poor defendents who have an attorney hired by friends and family do not generally have better outcomes than those defended by public defenders."Polanski left USA, nobody stopped him to do that and the case become international." He was out on bail, which means he was forbidden from leaving the state, but he did it anyways, like most criminals fleeing justice."The plea bargain procedure… is considered often to be like a lottery. As you said yourself, you never know what the judge will decide." You obviously do not understand how plea bargaining works. First, the prosecutor must offer the deal. Secondly, the defendent must accept it and confess guilt (a guilty plea is a legal admission of guilt). When the plea bargain is entered, the defendent is appraised of possible sentences before it is accepted by the court. Then, the judge decides a sentence based on the crime that the defendent plead guilty to. There are, in most jurisdictions, sentencing guidelines, which give a range of sentences from which the judge may choose. When you plead guilty, you do so knowing the possible charges. Polanski thought that, since he was rich, he would get away with the lightest possible sentence, but he was informed of the sentencing range. "If you are innocent but indigent and accused, with a plea bargain you might be out of jail quicker than being innocent and fighting it out in courts." This is not true. The long delays in the US court system are in civil cases, not in criminal ones. The prosecutor's investigation is usually complete when charges are pressed. The defendent has the right to a speedy trial, so, in most cases, the defendent could be in court within a month or so at the latest if they wished to proceed immediately. The problem is that the defendent's investigation begins when charges are pressed and they often need more time to prepare for trial. It is at the defense's request that trials are delayed, it is not a burden upon them. The only cases that you might see it be quicker to plea than to go to court are misdemeanors where the maximum jail term is no more than a few weeks."MRAs generally want to see laws where both crimes, rape and false rape allegation are subject to the same punishment" This is utter bullshit and is rather disgusting. Anyone who says this is minimizing the horror of being raped. Does it suck to be falsely accused? Sure, but it is not comparable to rape. I would rather be accused of murder than be murdered and I would rather be accused of rape than be raped.

  57. >DarkSideCatBeing falsely accused of murder and being falsely accused of rape are different things, rape of a woman is considered much worse than murder and in prison rapists can face rape, torture. As well as that bing falsely accused can lead to suicide and loss of everything and false accusations of murder dont go to trial unless there is evidence."A woman drove a man to suicide by crying rape and forced a second innocent man to consider taking his life after falsely accusing him of a similar sex attack.Despite being exposed in court as a serial liar, legal restrictions mean the 21-year-old woman can never be identified.A jury took only 45 minutes to clear medical student Olumide Fadayomi, 27, of rape.But several jurors at Sheffield Crown Court broke down in tears when the judge revealed the 'victim' had a history of crying rape."Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280926/Student-cleared-rape-emerges-second-man-committed-suicide-falsely-accused-woman.html#ixzz15iiE3j7gIf I could chose between raped in private and having an being falsely accused of rape, I'd chose being raped in private. Whats more most rapes are verbal coercion and don't involve violence or strangers.Feminists tend to minimize abuse victims, CSA victims, domestic abuse victims, false accusation victims, if they are victims of women… you want them all kept under the carpet and out of sight then you project that on to advocates of the victims of the crimes that your movement minimizes and oppresses by accusing them of minimizing abuse when in fact they are doing the opposite.

  58. >DarkSideCat: MRAs generally want to see laws where both crimes, rape and false rape allegation are subject to the same punishment. This is utter bullshit and is rather disgusting. Anyone who says this is minimizing the horror of being raped.Why? I did not say, I want the punishment for rape reduced. I said, I want the punishment for false rape allegations considerably increased.What's wrong with that?MRAs consider false rape allegations as a very severe crime equal to those of rape.Why do you protect false rape accusers against punishment? Because they are females?

  59. >Eoghan: If I could chose between raped in private and having being falsely accused of rape, I'd chose being raped in private.Yes, me too. Better raped for a few minutes than to be in jail maybe even over years for being falsely accused for a rape-crime which never took place and which exists solely in the sick fantasy of a psycho-grrl.False rape allegations are terrible crimes which deserve long jail-sentences. This is the only way to finish with this nonsense.Only a radical feminist could argue otherwise.

  60. >YohanId rather be raped in private than be falsely accused and going through the years of court and having my identity printed in the paper as that of a rapist even if the case was eventually thrown out of court, having to go to jail for it and face the punishment for being a rapist in there would be beyond horror.

  61. >@Eoghan, YohanYou know what would be really beyond horror? Being raped. Fucking wow. (I know you don't think so, but yeah.) IOW:"The thing is, I'm not sure he really understands how heinous rape actually is. I don't believe any man who will cast himself as a rapist, even (and perhaps especially) for a laugh, has any clue what they're saying. If they really understood what a (conscious) person being raped felt, looking up at the person forcing himself on hir, the abject terror, feeling his hot breath on hir neck, the stomach-churning revulsion, listening to him grunting and groaning, the red hot anger, struggling and clawing and resisting and succumbing and already feeling the creeping blame, the shame cutting through me like a knife, the horror of it, the unimaginable horror, oh god I can't believe this is happening, no goddamned person would ever cast himself as a rapist for a fucking joke. Not someone who understood. Not someone who'd ever even tried to understand."http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/08/rape-is-hilarious-part-35.htmlIs THAT what you'd prefer to being falsely accused? Anyone who really knows what it's like to be raped would never say such BS, and it's a rather privileged position since you know that your likelihood of getting raped is so fucking low, to make such an assertion. (Actually, depending on what studies you look at, you are more likely to be raped as a man than falsely accused, but that's a digression.) I gotta pull Eoghan's typical Godwin's Law argument on you: that's like saying, "oh I'd rather have been in a concentration camp than be falsely accused of being a Nazi war criminal". And you reason given? Because your identity would be published? Because it might only last a few minutes? Wow. Fucking privileged entitled ramblings that go way too far…

  62. > Eoghan said… YohanId rather be raped in private than be falsely accused and going through the years ….You are right and only a woman who has no consideration for men at all would argue otherwise.Spending a decade in a jail for males falsely accused by a woman for a non-existing sex-crime is better than being raped for a few minutes??? To say something like that is really ridiculous.As I said many times, both, rape and false rape allegations are severe crimes and BOTH crimes deserve long jail sentences. Only feminists argue otherwise, they want the males in jail for crimes against women, but justify the wrongdoings of malicious women who are fabricating sex-crimes accusing innocent men as 'victims of the patriarchy' or such nonsense.I think, its totally wrong for feminists to argue in that way, as a movement which is busy to excuse female criminals on the grounds that their crimes were committed only against men is entirely untrustworthy.

  63. >@Yohan – nice minimization of rape. Just a few minutes eh? Wow. Just fucking wow. "You are right and only a [man] who has no consideration for [wo]men at all would argue otherwise.Spending [] decade[s] [in therapy, reliving the horror, being subjected to victim-blaming and feeling shameful for speaking out, accused of lying, being afraid to even leave the house, etc.] for [fe]males [raped] by a []man for a [oft minimized] crime is better than being [falsely accused] for a few minutes [given that false accusations rarely ever make it to court and are often conflated with wrongful convictions, where a rape did take place]??? To say something like that is really ridiculous.As I said many times, both, rape and false rape allegations are [NOT equally] severe crimes and [ONLY rape] deserve[s] long jail sentences. Only [misogynistic rape apologists] argue otherwise, they want the [fe]males in jail [for the same time as rapists] for [petty] crimes against []men, but justify the wrongdoings of malicious []men who [really rape but] are fabricating [false rape allegations] accusing innocent [wo]men [whom they've raped] as '[members] of the [feminazi conspiracy]' or such nonsense.I think, its totally wrong for [misogynistic rape apologists] to argue in that way, as a movement which is busy to excuse []male criminals on the grounds that their crimes were committed only against [wo]men is entirely untrustworthy. "

  64. >@Tec:"You know what would be really beyond horror? Being raped. Fucking wow."The issue is a bogus rape conviction, followed by rape victimization of the non-rapist in prison. Not only is it unjust to confine a non-perpetrator, but also to expose him to those who would become predators against him. Prison life is incredibly violent and especially dangerous for non-rapists who were nevertheless convicted of a bogus rape allegation. Prisoners like to "punish" other prisoners who were convicted of rape. And if by some miracle a non-rapist who had been falsely convicted of rape were ever to survive that ordeal, and be paroled, his chances of eking out a humane and productive existence after his false incarceration are nil.False allegations of rape result in both unjust incarceration and repeated rape victimization by the falsely accused, in addition to the shattered life, the public marking, the shame, and the (for men) LACK of adequate psychological therapy after this ordeal. A man who is falsely accused of rape, unjustly convicted, and subsequently raped throughout the term of his incarceration — all because of a woman's lie — has it substantially worse than a woman who has been raped. There is absolutely no comparison.The issue is unjust INCARCERATION, and its after effects including the non-perpetrator's subsequent rape victimization. Rape of anyone is unjust. So why then do you try to elevate the seriousness of a woman's rape victimization above and beyond the seriousness of a man's rape victimization, made all the worse by society's condemnation against the non-rapist victim?And let me address the point of the appropriate punishment for false accusers of rape. The phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" in scripture emerges directly from false allegations of rape. The nation of Israel was commanded to "expel the evil from within your midst," namely the false accuser.

  65. >Tecwhen I was talking about the punishments for rapists in prison being "beyond horror". I was talking about prison rape, torture and death, rape and abuse at extreme levels that female victims of rape and abuse tend not to ever experience.I stand by what I said, I would rather be raped once in private and deal with that than be falsely accused, go through the months and years of court, lose everything and face vitilante attacks because Ive been publicly labelled a rapist.To be falsely accused and put in prison to face torture and violent rape for a number of years, would be beyond horror. I think that sometimes feminists have a difficult time conceptualising pain that is not their own or that of men, this is perhaps because as you said, feminists tend to be rape or abuse victims themselves and because feminism doesnt encourage healing from abuse but rather encourages cultivating the pain and pojecting it onto all men and the culture for its own political gain. I think that people like you tec are the abuse apologists and abuse minimizers of this debate, you want to oppress every victim other than those that look like you and have have been abused by someone that looks your abuser.

  66. >Anyone who say's that two drunk people fooling around is rape IS damn near demanding to be called out on their bullshit.

  67. The good news is that “drunken rapes” are but a fraction of rape cases. For the grasping at straws reasoning that since alcohol is involved — the permission for sex is automatically given you can rest easy knowing there are still more rapes without alcohol involvement that you can wrap your teeny, misogynistic minds around.

    False rape allegations are extremely rare.

    Most rapes are neither reported nor prosecuted.

    Most reported rapes are legitimate.

    Most women I have met and dated have either been raped or nearly raped — most often by a trusted acquaintance, relative or romantic interest.

    There’s one surefire way to lower the rape stats :

    STOP RAPING WOMEN AND STOP EXCUSING PERPETRATORS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,034 other followers

%d bloggers like this: