About these ads

On Slate, daddy blogger Andy Hinds guiltily wrestles with his sexual fantasies, wants us all to watch

Ogling: People do it.

Ogling: People do it. They just don’t all feel the need to write about it on Slate.

In Slate, writer Andy Hinds has provided us all with one of the most cringe-inducing “unsolicited penis updates” since our old friend Paul Elam filled us in on which “fuckmuffin” body parts make his Little Elam happiest.

Hinds starts off by assuring us he’s one of the feminist Good Guys, a stay-at-home-dad who respects the heck out of the ladies:

I celebrate every inroad that women make into business, technology, science, politics, comedy, you name it, and I get angry about “slut-shaming” or “stereotype threat” or whatever is the affront du jour.

But he also admits to having lurid sexual fantasies about, well, woman he finds attractive,

as if a never-ending porn movie has been playing in my subconscious for the last 30 years, and any lull in cognitive demands, or interaction with a woman who is perfect for a cameo in it—the woman walking her dog past my house, the neighbor’s nanny, the Valkyrie on the elliptical trainer at the gym—rotates the film to the main screen. In 3-D.

Yes, that’s right, we’re going to have to endure the sad spectacle of a grown man wrestling with his weird guilt over his sexual fantasies in public.

Though Hinds, thankfully, doesn’t spell out any of his porny fantasies in detail, it seems clear from what he writes that his everyday naughty thoughts, while evidently quite numerous, are more or less in line with the everyday naughty thoughts that every human being with a sex drive has on a fairly regular basis, not the extreme and intrusive thoughts that might require actual mental health treatment.

But, armed with advice from Sex Addicts Anonymous and an ebook called Porn Again Christian,  he decides, for a day, to try to clamp down on his lustful thoughts anyway, forcing himself to imagine the potential objects of his lust wearing burqas, and evidently finding that this …  helps?

Hinds’ piece has gotten him the attention I guess he wanted from feminists and anti-feminists alike.

From the latter, he’s gotten mostly ridicule for being a self-professed “beta dad” who feels guilty for having normal (hetero) male desires. On Reddit, he’s been bashed by Men’s Rightsers and Red Pillers in mostly predictable ways; on the manosphere blog Gucci Little Piggy, our old pal Chuck Ross complains that Hinds “doesn’t want to be, essentially, a man.”

Feminists have responded with a bit more cheek, telling Hinds, in essence, that’s nice dear, most of us think about sex, we just don’t  need to hear all about the filthy thoughts you have about the grocery store cashier. Accompanying a short post on Hinds’ piece with the laconic title “Man Thinks About Sex When He Looks At People,” the Awl helpfully provides us with a photoshopped image of Hinds  in a burqa.

On Jezebel, Katie J.M. Baker points out that having fantasies isn’t the problem here.

[I]t’s not sexist to think about boning strangers, [but] it’s horrifying, really, to resort to mentally censoring women so you don’t have to consider the possibility that you’re not actually as much of an “enlightened” feminist as you think but a dude with a latent Madonna-whore complex.

But to me the really cringeworthy aspect of Hinds’ piece is, well, what you’d have to call its exhibitionism. He doesn’t just talk about the women who inspire his fantasies in some vague generic sense; he specifies who these women are — not by name, but in such a way that if these women read his piece they’ll know he’s talking about them in particular: the staff at his kid’s school, the cashiers at his local grocery store, the women in his yoga class.

My classmates are mostly women, mostly in yoga pants and tank tops; and naturally the ones with the best form are also the most fit and attractive. Perhaps one day I’ll be able to honestly say that I can look at a woman in a downward facing dog pose and be struck only by her strength and flexibility. Today is not that day.

Ewww.

His post on Slate is the journalistic equivalent of going up to them and saying, hey, pretty lady whom I run into on a regular basis but otherwise know nothing about, whenever I see you I think about doing you. It’s almost, if not quite, the journalistic equivalent of sending them unsolicited dick pics.

EDIT: That’s not quite right. That might be the appropriate metaphor if he had spelled out his fantasies. But he didn’t. What he’s doing is more like the journalistic equivalent of a catcall. Which is still pretty icky, especially if you’re virtually catcalling the woman in front of you in yoga class, or your kids’ teacher.

At the end of his post, Hinds proudly reports that his Day of the Burqa has helped him to lust after the ladies less.

This technique of essentially ignoring women’s physical presence may not be sustainable, and it may not be desirable. But it also seems like as good an alternative as any to giving women unwanted (or even wanted) sexual attention … .

Yeah, then you  went ahead and wrote an article for Slate announcing to these women, and the world, that you’ve been thinking all sorts of nasty thoughts about them for years. Keep it in your pants, and off the internet.

EDITED TO ADD: Hinds has written a defensive yet indignant response of sorts to his critics, the gist of which is “come on, guys, it was supposed to be funny!

In apportioning blame for people not “getting” how utterly hilarious his sort-of “satirical” piece was, Hinds blames, among others, “crazy” commenters on Slate, “internet pundits whose default setting is snarky outrage,” his editor (for telling him he was funny) and, oh yeah, himself, a little bit, “for not fully committing to the humor piece.”

Keep digging, dude!

About these ads

Posted on May 31, 2013, in antifeminism, beta males, creepy, feminism, irony alert, misogyny, MRA, self-congratulation, sex, sexual harassment, sexualization, the sound of his own voice, unsolicited penis updates and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 131 Comments.

  1. So, I read Hinds’ “defense”. I was not surprised to learn that he believes Evo-Psych papers are actually science.

  2. @LBT – “With no context and a borked BQ, that is funny and non sequitur as hell.”

    Gods, it is, too!

    ::retires covered in confusion::
    :D

  3. The Black Fedora

    The whole article as a reflection of the tragic failure of sex positive feminism.

    I think the next ‘wave’ will be a back to basics ‘all sex is rape’ variety. This at least has the virtue of being honest and makes it easier to tell normal women apart from feminists visually.

    One of the side effects of the current wave is an increase in complaints about male sexual conduct due to feminists looking more or less like normal women.

  4. So, like, is this a common phenomenon? Men who think being a feminist means wallowing in guilt all the time?

    The only man I’ve met irl who had such tendencies was my sixteen-year-old boyfriend eighteen years ago. He’d feel guilty about stuff like thinking traditional “sexy lingerie” was, eh, sexy, thought that preference was sexist. I was like “that’s hilarious, do you think being a feminist and socialist mean you have to train your preferences until you only get a boner from unshaved ladies in unbleached cotton undies with Lenin print?” and well, he could see how silly that was when I pointed it out. I think he got out of this wallowing in guilt thing pretty quickly…

    Really, it’s as if I would go around all day worrying about having subconscious racist bias that makes me react with slightly different emotions on seeing black vs white faces. I probably do have such bias, as psychological experiment has shown virtually all people have, but it would be a ridiculous waste of time to spend my days punching myself over it.

    Although wallowing in guilt over having sexual fantasies is actually even stupider, because having sexual fantasies isn’t even a bit sexist to start with.

  5. One of the side effects of the current wave is an increase in complaints about male sexual conduct due to feminists looking more or less like normal women.

    Feminists ARE normal women. What are you trying to say?

  6. CassandraSays

    And now I want knickers with Lenin’s head on them, just because.

  7. @Fedora

    So somehow sex-positive feminism is bad because some men seem to think that feminists are anti-sex. How does that make sense at all?

    Nobody here, and indeed, nobody in mainstream feminism thinks ‘male sexual conduct’ is a problem. Normal people however, think rape is a problem. Unless you think rape is normal ‘male sexual conduct’, you have no reason to think that feminists have a problem with male sexuality.

  8. Dvärghundspossen, I think what’s going on in the article is a) he thinks feminism means he should wallow in guilt for having sexual fantasies but b) he resents wallowing in guilt for his fantasies so c) he writes an article that basically allows him to express this resentment by virtually catcalling the staff at his kids school, the women in his yoga class — all while d) pretending he’s trying to examine his bad unfeminist sexual fantasies.

  9. This is all reminding me that I still need to pick up Greta Christina’s “Bending” on Kindle.

  10. @melody

    Yay that your unemployment got approved :) Don’t answer this if you don’t want to, but do you live in America? Because I know the unemployment was not so good and pretty frustrating for my parents here when they were unemployed.

    @midlymagnificent

    I’m going back in history now, but there were all sorts of mainstream arguments back in the 70s that men and women couldn’t work together, because secks

    That sounds…strange. Where were non-hetereosexual people supposed to fit in this? Or non-gender binary people?

    Okay, I’m sorry if we’re supposed to be ignoring Black Fedora (think someone said there was one troll to ignore, but I wasn’t there when they said which), but:

    This at least has the virtue of being honest and makes it easier to tell normal women apart from feminists visually.

    Black fedora, you do know that most people do not talk about sex non-stop, right? Even if your faulty premise were true, a good portion of life would be working, or doing errands, or hanging out with friends.

  11. @Athywren
    Ducle et decorum est, pro patria mori.

    The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
    Pro patria mori.(15)

    For real. It is a total lie, not for glory, not for status, I would propose a different WWI poem for this forum:

    The person we were talking about is called “ProPatria Truthteller.” I know the idea’s a lie, I was mocking them, not attempting to shore up masculinity or warmongeriness. Though, to be fair, I guess I didn’t actually make any real effort to make that clear… I guess I, too, am guilty of forgetting the absorptive capacity of the internet on tone. Sorry about that.

  12. I think the next ‘wave’ will be a back to basics ‘all sex is rape’ variety. This at least has the virtue of being honest and makes it easier to tell normal women apart from feminists visually.

    …how exactly? Is this like in Star Wars, where thinking that all sex is rape turns your eyes yellow and you skin sickly pale, while thinking sex is fine as long as it’s consensual makes you stand up straighter?

    Speaking of which, I don’t really know much about the “all sex is rape” position, but it seems like it’s more of a commentary on power differentials than the assertion that all sex actually is rape. Does anyone rational know the truth of this?

    One of the side effects of the current wave is an increase in complaints about male sexual conduct due to feminists looking more or less like normal women.

    ……….. I don’t look anything like a woman, normal or abnormal. Though I think you’ll find that the real cause for any increase in complaints about male sexual conduct is the fact that it might actually be taken seriously now, while it was unthinkable and laughable in the ’60s. That fact is that most female feminists actually are normal women, though maybe less would need to be if more males would conduct their sexuality in positive ways?

  13. …how exactly? Is this like in Star Wars, where thinking that all sex is rape turns your eyes yellow and you skin sickly pale, while thinking sex is fine as long as it’s consensual makes you stand up straighter?

    I feel the power of the darkside flowing through my veins!!!! ::cackles evilly + does force lightningh::

  14. I found the problem for him.

    If I were to say, “By the way, your rack looks awesome and I would love to knock boots with you right here in the line at Costco,” that would be decidedly sexist (a word which, according to many of my new critics, I am using completely wrong), right? But to think those things is okay, as long as I keep them to myself? This is what I would call cognitive dissonance, and it seems like something worth talking about.

    No, dearie, it’s called ‘being a grownup’ when you realize that not every single one of your thoughts needs to be expressed or acted upon.

    And yes, as a feminist and a human who happens to have girly parts, I think it is perfectly fine if the folks around me (no matter what kind of parts they have) admire my parts (though not in an obtrusive way) and have thoughts of all kinds, so long as they keep them to themselves. If you smile at me and I smile at you, and both of us go away with detailed fantasies about knocking boots up against the conveyor belt at the Costco, that’s perfectly fine. I’d even say it’s perfectly human and healthy.

    If you smile at me and I smile at you, and we start chatting and that leads to knocking boots up against something later (not the conveyor belt because I’ve SEEN what gets put there and ewwwwwwwww! Not to mention that the management doesn’t appreciate behavior that requires closing a lane for cleanup) that’s still fine.

    If you smile at me and I smile at you and you feel the need then to tell me about your fantasies right then and there? Not fine. Creeptacular, actually. If you smile at me and then feel the need to go and tell every one of your friends about your fantasies, that’s still a bit creepy, but so long as they don’t mind, and your fantasies aren’t too stalktastic, I suppose that’s okay.

    But seriously, why does the world need to hear about every little thought and fantasy you have in a day? And why do you have to turn Slate into some kind of passive aggressive Playboy Forum where you get to air out all the sweaty little thoughts you know you would be near universally understood to be crass and inappropriate if you shared them in person?

  15. No, dearie, it’s called ‘being a grownup’ when you realize that not every single one of your thoughts needs to be expressed

    One might also call it “being sober”. Common symptom of being extremely drunk: The usual filter between brain and mouth is torn down and you start thinking everything out loud.

    “Cognitive dissonance” means dealing with contradictory ideas. Like, someone who thinks homosexuals are disgusting while simultaneously being fond of her sister who just came out as a lesbian – that kind of thing leads to cognitive dissonance. Thinking it’s fine to have sexual fantasies but not fine to blurt them out to strangers – nothing contradictory about it.

  16. @ Mare
    Ya, I’m in America. It has been a huge hassle and it isn’t that much money. However, anything is helpful at this point. I have THE worst luck.

    @Athywren I hear more about the all sex is rape from MRMs than anywhere else. Or to be honest the only people who I have EVER heard bring it up were anti-feminist. I’m not saying there probably aren’t folks who believe it, but I would assert that they are very likely a tiny minority.

    No, dearie, it’s called ‘being a grownup’ when you realize that not every single one of your thoughts needs to be expressed or acted upon.

    Exactly. I’m sure he know this though. I’m certain he has thought things about his boss, his friends and his family that he didn’t blurt out and didn’t feel guilty over.

  17. I gotta catch up with this and other threads, but the pic above is one if my all time faves. That side-eye of Sophia’s is a classic.

  18. ignotussomnium

    Yes, pretending women don’t exist is the absolute best way to be an ally. Just go on about your business imagining every woman around is invisible or hidden under a burqa. That way you don’t have to think about us, sexually or not, and can return to blithely ignoring how your behavior and that of other men affects women. (That was sarcasm, because some trolls here have difficulty reading tone.)

  19. …yeah, this guy doesn’t know what cognitive dissonance means. It’s not the tension between thinking something and saying it out loud; it’s the tension between two conflicting, self-relevant sets of information.
    It actually kind of reminds me of that old manosphere trope that an opportunity to have sex is IMPORTANT and MUST BE HONORED. This guy is just applying it to his own sexy THOUGHTS.
    I still think this has more to do with religion than women; he’s standing up for his AMERICAN, SECULAR HUMANIST RIGHT TO OGLE. But, it’s weird that he both creates a straw feminist telling him not to be attracted to random women AND considers his attraction to random women so important it must be preserved. I wonder which happened first.

    Now, but getting all defensive because you want to think of yourself as a feminist but people who know what they’re talking about say you’re sexist? THAT’S cognitive dissonance.

  20. He must know he’s full of shit with the cognitive dissonance line, right? Does he think he should just say everything that comes into his head?

  21. neuroticbeagle

    A man using self control? Isn’t that misandry?

  22. If I were to say, “By the way, your rack looks awesome and I would love to knock boots with you right here in the line at Costco,” that would be decidedly sexist.

    That’s not sexist, Andy, you moron. That’s harassment.

    It sounds like Mr Schwarz Hut would like feminists to go around with, say, pink vagina cutouts pinned to their coats so they’ll be easy to spot. My grandfather fought in a war so that we wouldn’t have to do things like that.

  23. PPT is saying he lives for the country of truth. It’s why I changed the name, because he’s all about the truthy.

  24. melody said:

    @Athywren I hear more about the all sex is rape from MRMs than anywhere else. Or to be honest the only people who I have EVER heard bring it up were anti-feminist. I’m not saying there probably aren’t folks who believe it, but I would assert that they are very likely a tiny minority.

    I have also seen it used as a thought experiment when discussing how patriarchy affects women’s agency. Key words there being *thought experiment,* as in it is intentionally extreme in order to open up the conversation and thoroughly explore ideas. It’s not a position actually held by the people who use it that way.

    But yeah, outside of academic discussions like that, I think I’ve only seen it brought up by anti-feminists.

  25. However there was one feminist who did say “all men are rapists”, but those were the words of one of her characters. In the story a mother found out her daughter was raped, and said that all men are rapists. It was about the anguish she felt, even the character didn’t actually believe that.
    Of course anti-feminists took that out of context.

  26. marie That sounds…strange. Where were non-hetereosexual people supposed to fit in this? Or non-gender binary people?

    In the seventies? Non-hetero-sexual?
    Trigger Warning – though the title tells you anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Duncan

    Not on anyone’s radar then. Though I have a vague feeling that all the frothing blather about us feminists being not-so-secret lesbians might even have been a bit of help in getting the issue discussed publicly. Though here it really was Duncan’s murder that got things going.

    And when I said mainstream I suppose I was thinking of those wonderful people at WWWW, Women Who Want to be Women. Check the Antifeminism page on wiki (which has a very long list of publications by drearily predictable usual suspects).

  27. Yeah, so Hind is a clueless dolt. So what? O’Connor’s article on the Cut talked about tearing his fingers off one by one, etc…
    And what the fuck kind of response is “Eww” to the socially awkward Hinds’ expression of sexual desire. If a socially awkward girl rambled about her conflicting sexual desires, would anyone tolerate let alone celebrate this kind of psychotic and sadistic response?
    Dude… are you for real?? I can only speculate to what kind of effed up psyche and sexual identity you have.

  28. Speaking of humor and the lack thereof, I’m drawing the AVfP “women aren’t funny.” Its source material goes back to this hideous article by Christopher Hitchens (yes, this was a while ago).

    So quick question: Do people think it would be OK for me to draw Christopher Hitchens into my comic? Or should I extend him some respect for being dead?

  29. @katz, I make rude jokes about Reagan & Thatcher, so I may not be the best person to ask. But I think it would be fine.

  30. My biased answer is that I’ve no respect for Christopher Hitchens whether Here or There, so go for it. It’s not like he extended a hell of a lot of respect to women.

  31. And Dr No, O’Connor’s article was satire, and you should learn to read for comprehension.

  32. Going back to this nonsense – which I know has been covered, but is so wtf:

    This technique of essentially ignoring women’s physical presence may not be sustainable, and it may not be desirable. But it also seems like as good an alternative as any to giving women unwanted (or even wanted) sexual attention … .

    Noticing and fantasising about people =/= telling them about it.

    Telling the strangers or bare acquaintences he mentions about his fantasies is harassment.

    What sort of immature twit thinks the only alternative to shoving his fantasies in people’s faces is pretending they don’t exist? How is erasure any more respectful than fantasising privately?

    And then he tells us this is satire? Nope, fail. It’s not funny, pointed, or clever, just stupid and immature. If any of the people or situations he described are real, it’s creepy. It’s also not hitting up, which satire is supposed to do. It’s just whiny frat (or prat) humour at best.

  33. *pretending the people he’s fantasising about don’t exist, that is.

  34. And what the fuck kind of response is “Eww” to the socially awkward Hinds’ expression of sexual desire. If a socially awkward girl rambled about her conflicting sexual desires, would anyone tolerate let alone celebrate this kind of psychotic and sadistic response?
    Dude… are you for real?? I can only speculate to what kind of effed up psyche and sexual identity you have.

    Being socially awkward is not an excuse for being invasive.

  35. I notice the latest dipshit troll didn’t bother to read the rest of what David said:

    www.

    His post on Slate is the journalistic equivalent of going up to them and saying, hey, pretty lady whom I run into on a regular basis but otherwise know nothing about, whenever I see you I think about doing you. It’s almost, if not quite, the journalistic equivalent of sending them unsolicited dick pics.

    EDIT: That’s not quite right. That might be the appropriate metaphor if he had spelled out his fantasies. But he didn’t. What he’s doing is more like the journalistic equivalent of a catcall. Which is still pretty icky, especially if you’re virtually catcalling the woman in front of you in yoga class, or your kids’ teacher.

    And “sadistic response”? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA who was it telling him he “doesn’t want to be a man” and all the usual shit? Men’s Righters, that’s who. As cited in the post.

    Comprehension, trollz do hot haz it.

  36. Do NOT haz it. I can type gud.

  37. Drr6: can you read? All signs point to “no.”

  38. Katz: Dead, schmead. Some Hitch fanboys (hi, mr. al) might wank, but fuck ‘em.

  39. So quick question: Do people think it would be OK for me to draw Christopher Hitchens into my comic? Or should I extend him some respect for being dead?

    Speaking as an atheist, I find this concept deeply offensive!
    Oh.. wait, sorry, I mistook myself for someone who takes things far too seriously.
    In general, I have a lot of respect for the guy… perhaps not in all specifics, but in general. He certainly seemed to be at least peripherally feminist, though I’m basing this on statements about how the reproductive freedom of women is necessary for healthy societies and little else, so please correct me if I’m wrong on that. Anyway, I don’t think he’d be offended by your including him just because he’s dead, so anyone else who is should probably get a grip. I mean, I’m all for respect for the dead, but I don’t think respecting means refusing to criticise or mock if deserved, and I think he’d agree… in fact I know he would – he certainly didn’t hold back when others died.

  40. yazikus: I’d like it (nor for myself,I recognise Sassoon, and Rosenberg, and Seeger, and Owen, and any number of others, whose names are at present escaping me) because most people have no idea who the trench poets were; and so are likely to think that all quoted were written by the author of the first.

    My favorite is somewhat personal, and probably the most bitingly bitter of Wilfred Owen’s work.

  41. Er, I’d like it if you attributed the poets. Sorry, long day.

  42. So quick question: Do people think it would be OK for me to draw Christopher Hitchens into my comic? Or should I extend him some respect for being dead?

    I don’t have t
    For myself, I figure nil nisi bonum only applies if you weren’t saying ill things of him before he died. Me, I think he was a shit, and a hypocrite, and a lousy human being; though sometimes clever with words, and I see no reason to not keep saying because he croaked.

    So, no, I don’t think being dead gives him a pass.

  43. By the logic of “never ever speak I’ll of the dead” GODWIN ALERT we can’t even Godwin at all since we can’t discuss anything negative about Hitler *just got meta*

    But yeah, what pecunium said. I see no reason that dying should be a get out of critism free card.

  44. I think the next ‘wave’ will be a back to basics ‘all sex is rape’ variety. This at least has the virtue of being honest and makes it easier to tell normal women apart from feminists visually.

    1: Why do you think this.
    2: What about this will make “feminists” visibly distinct from other women?

  45. 2: What about this will make “feminists” visibly distinct from other women?

    We’ve actually already established this. It’s because they’ll start looking like this.

  46. ProPatria Truthteller

    Christopher Hitchens would not want you to respect him because of his death. Anyway it’s been over a year now. And look what he did to Mother Teresa.
    I know a woman who knew him from his days in the Trotskyist movement and she says he used to be a nice guy. His atheist mysogeny proves that getting rid of religion won’t do anything to help women’s rights.

  47. ProPatria Truthteller

    So I actually agree with Pecunium for once generally about Hitchens. Finally the Catholic Church on this site is back together, albeit for one brief second!
    I disagree with Hitchens on nearly everything; I prefer his brother. But Hitch Twenty-Two (the memoir from right before his death) was a great book.

  48. ProPatria Truthteller

    To a question asked earlier on this thread, I’m not sure if I should link to my conversations with white nationalists, because people here will probably troll them, leading to them trolling this site, and I do not want to create more work for the moderator.
    I have not posted on MRA sites yet. Next week I need to take a break from the Internet to take care of some real life business. I will get to it after that break.

  49. @midlymagnificent

    In the seventies? Non-hetero-sexual?
    Trigger Warning – though the title tells you anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Duncan

    Ugh :(

    @Drro

    And what the fuck kind of response is “Eww” to the socially awkward Hinds’ expression of sexual desire.

    Nobody wants to hear about his sexual desires, dude. And this isn’t some slipped up starting to say something, he typed the whole damn thing out and put it on the internet. Not really an accident.

    If a socially awkward girl rambled about her conflicting sexual desires, would anyone tolerate let alone celebrate this kind of psychotic and sadistic response?

    If she was being as creepy as Hinds was, fuck yes. Nobody needs to be creeped on like that. Also, please stop equating socially awkward with creeper who angsts about their fantasies on the internet because they are not the same.

    @katz

    So quick question: Do people think it would be OK for me to draw Christopher Hitchens into my comic? Or should I extend him some respect for being dead?

    My vote is go for it if you want to.

  50. PPT. If you’ll take a hint from an old feminist, I’d take a a few days and a fair bit of time reading not just posts but comment threads if you’re wanting to get into those places.

    Otherwise you might find yourself in some very deep, very hot, smelly and murky water you’d rather not deal with. You might find us difficult or opinionated or stroppy. We are not in the same league as them. A good number are seriously nasty. A few are close to criminal (in what they say, I have no idea what they do). Maybe your previous contact with racists will make some of it less of a shock than it might be to a real noob, but it won’t be comfortable let alone pleasant.

    But a bit of reading in advance will at least prepare you for who among the commenters is likely to say which particularly vile or offensive things.

  51. Oh now that’s just precious. He won’t provided requested evidence because we might and then they might and then THINK OF THE MODERATOR!! Truly, adorable. A whole new excuse to not provide citations, that takes effort.

    Also, pretty sure pecunium gives exactly zero fucks whether you agree with him. Entirely sure that acting like you two are some sort of in club because your both Catholic is gross.

    Pecunium — wanna be grouped with him as Catholic or me as a heretic? :)

  52. I have a better method to tell normal women and feminists apart: check the teeth.

    http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/.a/6a00d8341d03e253ef0163019056a0970d-pi

  53. I have a better method to tell normal women and feminists apart: check the teeth.

    http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/.a/6a00d8341d03e253ef0163019056a0970d-pi

    Sweet, holy mother of eek! So that’s why my tongue bled after kissing my ex!

  54. ProPatria Truthteller

    Thanks Mildlymagnificent.

  55. Shouldn’t the “all sex is rape” position be properly described as “all heterosexual penetrative sex is rape”? I mean, it just seems like the first formulation is a wee bit presumptive.

    Cuz, to be fair, there are lots of kinds of sex — even among us straight people — that don’t involve penetration. Even if we grant that all penetrative sex between men and women is rape, that still leaves a lot of fun stuff for straight men and women to do with each other during sexyfuntime.

    For the record, I don’t grant that, and I don’t know any feminist past or present who does. And I think the failure to make this distinction tells us more about MRA/PUA prejudices than it does about feminism itself.

    If nothing else, it’s a failure of the imagination.

    As for the OP article, all I can say is, “dude, grow up; your article is creepy.”

  56. Wait if my teeth don’t look like that does that mean I’m a fake? Or does it just mean I’m better at hiding my evil feminist ways?

  57. Thanks, guys. I am much reassured.

  58. The ideal with looking like those great pics would be if we just did Hulk-style transformations in the presence of MRAs. It’d be a response to toxic levels of misogyny, probably with high doses of stupidity thrown in. Of course the response would create a few other smells, but knowing MRA had just shit himself, or at least wet himself, would be so worth it.

  59. PPT: I know a woman who knew him from his days in the Trotskyist movement and she says he used to be a nice guy.

    These women you know sure get around. They know the Vatican, they knew Hitchens. I’m impressed (BTW, the Archdiocese to call, (save you the hassle of calling Vatican City) is New York. I’m sure the local bishop will be all over calling me in for an examination: I’m sure that when I leave it, I’ll still be a communicant of the Church, but go to town, AMDg).

    To a question asked earlier on this thread, I’m not sure if I should link to my conversations with white nationalists, because people here will probably troll them, leading to them trolling this site, and I do not want to create more work for the moderator.

    Unh hunh. Pull the other one (and no, “The Catholic Church on this site is not together. You are not The Church and we are not the only Catholics present).

    Argenti: Pecunium — wanna be grouped with him as Catholic or me as a heretic?

    I think the venn diagram would actually show the three of us in the Circle of Heretics, while he and I also overlapped in Catholic.

    It’s just that the heresies aren’t the same. (because all catholics can be defined as heretics; just depends on how old they are which of the beliefs of their youth which are no longer doctrinally correct are corrupting their present practice of the Catholic Religion; like life, it’s messy).

  60. Do we overlap in the cool kids circle? (Well, cool adults)

    Also, I may have to go, the furry master demands pets.

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 7,416 other followers

%d bloggers like this: