About these ads

Men’s Rights Activists respond to the Elliot Rodger murders with a hearty “Nothing to see here! Move along!”

nothing-to-see-here
The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider sending some bucks my way. (And don’t worry that the PayPal page says Man Boobz.) Thanks! And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.

If anyone was hoping – against their better judgement – that Men’s Rights activists would be inspired by the tragedy in Isla Vista to reconsider any of their beliefs, or even to reflect for a moment on the many striking similarities between passages in Elliot Rodger’s book-length manifesto and comments posted every day by MRAs and others in the manosphere, well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you should not keep that hope alive.

It’s not that they’re not talking about the tragedy. A look through the top 100 posts in the Men’s Rights subreddit, the largest Men’s Rights forum online, reveals that roughly a third of them, including the top stickied post, relate in some way to Elliot Rodger’s rampage and the discussions that have come up online and in the media in its aftermath.

But the message of virtually all of these posts is: “Nothing to see here! Move along!” There are numerous posts expressing outrage that anyone would see any connection between Rodger’s toxic misogyny to the Men’s Rights movement; there are others mocking and attacking the #YesAllWomen hashtag; there’s even one suggesting that Rodger, who wrote about how he longed to watch all the women of the world starve to death in concentration camps, wasn’t actually a misogynist at all.

Take a look. One post, with more than 500 upvotes, complains:

Feminists highjack what should be a Mental Health issue.
Another post makes a strikingly similar complaint:

Feminists Hijack A Mass Murder To Boost Self-Esteem
One angry MRA asks:

Why am I being compared to a mentally ill, narcissistic, racist, misogynist, sociopathic serial killer?
Another wonders:

So at this point would it be worth it to look into a Defamation suit against those trying to link MRA's with the recent tragedy?

Sorry to break it to you, fella, but that’s not how defamation suits work. If it were, all of us who call ourselves feminists would be collecting millions of dollars from the Men’s Rights subreddit for all the patently untrue things you guys say about us every day of every week.

Still others make sure that everyone knows that Rodger hated men too – not that this has actually gone unnoticed in the media or in discussions of the tragedy.

Proof that Elliot Rodger Hates Men
Finally! The MSM acknowledges that Elliot Roger hated *MEN*

And then there’s this fellow, who seems to think that Rodger only hated men, and that his big problem with women was that he loved them too much:

Elliot Rodgers the Misandrist. (self.MensRights) submitted 13 hours ago by TheWhimsicalFox In listening to Elliot's videos, and reading some of his manifesto, I almost feel as if this guy really just hated men. It seems as if he put women on a pedestal and held such an adoration for them that he could not understand how the "beasts" (among other terms)/men got to date them. This is a totally new idea for me, I haven't really thought it through for longer than a minute or two. So that's why I'm taking it here. What do you guys think?
There are, it’s true, two posts that raise the issue of what might be done to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future. One of them takes on the issue of “virgin shaming.” (Sure, I’m against that, and against slut shaming too. Odd that roughly 100% of the virgin shaming I’ve ever heard in my life has come from MRAs and other non-fans of this blog, even though — sorry to break it to you fellows — I’ve not been a virgin since the early Reagan administration.)

Meanwhile, the other “positive” suggestion  — the stickied top post, submitted by one of the forum’s moderators — is pretty transparently intended as a PR move – and an excuse to bash feminists.

Time to get positive. What would help alienated men? (self.MensRights) submitted 20 hours ago * by nicemod - stickied post The recent tragedy in California has focused attention on troubled young men. Attempts by feminists to associate our movement with violence have met with little success, but have drawn many curious people to see what we're about. We can take advantage of this by proposing positive, male-friendly solutions to such problems. Proposals by feminists, based on the false assumption that maleness is inherently bad, will not work. What will? How could society effectively address male problems such as Loneliness Mental illness Alienation from society Virgin shaming Creep shaming Depression Demonisation What other issues need to be looked at? Please discuss.
Yep, “creep shaming.” That’s the problem! Way to cut through all the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter! The problem isn’t that some men — well, a lot of men — think and act in predatory and entitled ways towards women. The problem is that sometimes when they do, women call them “creeps.”

The problem isn’t that the world’s creepiest and most entitled man just killed 6 innocent people, the problem is “creep shaming.”

After killing his roommates and a friend of theirs, Rodger attempted to get inside a sorority so he could massacre the women inside it. But he couldn’t get anyone to let him in. Probably because, well, whoever was nearest the door thought he looked a  bit, well, creepy.

“Creep-shaming” isn’t some insidious form of discrimination against awkward men. It’s a defense mechanism that women develop to protect them against predatory men. And in the case of the Isla Vista murders, I’m guessing that the willingness of women to go with their gut sense that Rodger was a creep literally saved lives.

But the mods of the Men’s Rights subreddit would rather moan about “creep shaming.” They would prefer that women lower their defenses against men like Elliot Rodger — because it hurts their feelings to sometimes get called a “creep.”

Guys, this is why people think Elliot Rodger was an MRA.

EDIT: I added more to the conclusion because I had more to say about creep shaming.

About these ads

Posted on May 28, 2014, in antifeminism, creep-shaming, elliot rodger, entitled babies, entitlement, hypocrisy, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, misandry, misogyny, MRA, post contains sarcasm, reddit, straw feminists, the eternal solipsism of the MRA mind and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 532 Comments.

  1. “If I concent to sex with someone and they do too, we are entitled to and have a right to have sex with each other”

    wut

  2. Where did anyone say women can’t consent to sex? I think BLS does not quite understand the definition of the word ‘entitlement.’

    As for the porn star thing; I’m assuming BLS is one of those people who gets angry if a blog doesn’t cover each specific topic zie wants at any given moment. Zie needs to understand that this is a niche blog for mocking the manosphere misogyny and not a blog that covers general social and political issues.

  3. emilygoddess

    I just literally don’t know what BLS is on about half the time. I think they posted a comment that David didn’t let through, and it had something to do with porn performers and suicide. And yeah, it’s a “why aren’t you talking about my pet issue” thing, because now BLS wants to know why we don’t care about whatever it was. I think. It’s really hard to tell, and my repeated requests for clarification have gone unheeded.

  4. cassandrakitty

    I have no idea if I care about whatever it is that he’s on about, since I still don’t know what that thing is.

  5. If I concent to sex with someone and they do too, we are entitled to and have a right to have sex with each other. So that is the different context I was referring to. Now burn in hell with your worthless abstractions, I prefer to live in the real world.

    No, that means those two people are consenting to sex, which is great. But that doesn’t mean that either one are “entitled” to sex from the other. Consent can be withdrawn at any point by either part without the other party being “entitled” to sex when that consent is withdrawn.

    This is pretty basic human decency, really. And it’s really not abstract in the slightest. It’s pretty easy: no-one is entitled to another person’s body. Simple.

    BLS, you seem to not understand the difference between “consent” and “entitlement.”

  6. Argenti Aertheri

    Sparky, I can help BLS with that confusion:

    A) con·sent verb \kən-ˈsent\
    : to agree to do or allow something
    : to give permission for something to happen or be done

    intransitive verb
    1: to give assent or approval : agree
    2 archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment

    — con·sent·er noun
    — con·sent·ing·ly adverb

    Examples of CONSENT
    He was reluctant at first but finally consented.

    B) consent noun
    : permission for something to happen or be done
    : agreement about an opinion or about something that will happen or be done

    1: compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another : acquiescence
    2: agreement as to action or opinion; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to the government

    Examples of CONSENT
    He did not give his consent for the use of his name in the advertisement.
    No one may use the vehicle without the consent of the owner.

    en·ti·tle·ment noun \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\
    : the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
    : the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)
    : a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

    1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
    1b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
    2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
    3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

    Examples of ENTITLEMENT
    my entitlement to a refund
    celebrities who have an arrogant sense of entitlement
    entitlements such as medical aid for the elderly and poor

    Note the difference there BLS?

  7. Black Linen Sheets

    Argenti,
    Of course I do. Consent is a condition for entitlement when talking about sex. Sparky just doesn’t get it because I am clearly putting consent as a precondition to being entitled to sex.

    But what about rights? Because sex is part of human nature and humans have a right to their human nature. But that could change. Not only our rights but our human nature. Science is scary.

    Maybe I was too harsh calling you guys fake feminists, but you guys definitely are rhetoric heavy. That’s what I mean when I say I would rather live in the real world instead of the world of abstractions.

    Most premises based on abstractions, especially ethical ones, can easily be turned upside down and result in an equally valid assertion.

    So my belief is that a lot of rhetorical feminism simply results in retributive finger pointing in an opportunistic way that actually ends up serving patriarchy.

    Think about MRA’s. Do men not deserve rights? Of course they do, everyone does, but what really matters is not the words men and rights but what those words end up encouraging in the real world.

    And my belief is that a lot of rhetorical feminism is guilty of this too, just from the other side of things.

    The fundamental problem with Rodger and similar cases is this imo:
    Pull up any porn website and you see millions upon millions of young women, often very attractive, doing horrible things for chump change much of the time. Some have even been bullied and shamed to suicide. Rodger was a nice middle (upper-middle) class kid that wasn’t noticeably messed up or unattractive.

    But if women are treated like property, then the laws of capitalism apply to their bodies, not the law of consent and human rights. And in that case, that control is in someone else’s hand, just like when they say there are more empty houses and apartments than homeless people.

    What I’m obviously referring to is ideology, that is, the way that an obvious truth is consistently denied and swept under the rug, even violently sometimes. And with all the insults and response from this blog, how can any of you claim to be any better than the MRA’s, PUA’s, etc? I don’t think you are (except maybe that other one that was real shitty with the guy that said Rodger didn’t kill enough women).

    Instead of feeding the phony psychiatric industry lie machine with the smug and smarmy criticisms of Rodger’s misogyny and mental health problems, why not highlight Rodger as an example of how patriarchy harms men as much as women sometimes. And in this patriarchy, different sorts of mental health issues develop with an industry not willing to honestly deal with them since they too are invested in patriarchy and misogyny. Well, that would make too much sense, wouldn’t it.

    And I’m not excusing what he did. But that sort of response is typical of how patriarchy socializes young men, isn’t it. And so was the response on this website. Angry scathing invective at what is obvious and self apparent.

    But it isn’t always so I think it deserves to be mentioned.

  8. And with all the insults and response from this blog, how can any of you claim to be any better than the MRA’s, PUA’s, etc? I don’t think you are

    JFC, are you serious? I was reading this comment and even agreeing with some of it, until I got to this part. TIL that calling misogynists names is just as bad as calling for the right to beat and rape women.

    why not highlight Rodger as an example of how patriarchy harms men as much as women sometimes.

    Because Rodger is a crystal-clear example of how the patriarchy harms women, and I refuse to focus on the poor abused murderer over his victims.

  9. BLS, bullshit.

    This isn’t rhetoric of abstraction, it’s women’s lives and bodies.

    But what about rights? Because sex is part of human nature and humans have a right to their human nature. But that could change. Not only our rights but our human nature. Science is scary.

    Nope. Sex is not a right. I don’t know why you don’t understand this, and it’s frightening that you don’t appear to. Yes, sexuality is part of human nature and everyone is entitled to their own sexuality (and, different people have differing sex drives and likes/dislikes and some people don’t have a lot or any sex drive and all of that is okay), but if an act includes more than one person, then all parties must consent to the act.

    No, no one is entitled to the use of another person’s body without their consent. No, no one has a right to another person’s body without their consent. It doesn’t matter how badly one person wants to have sex with another person, no one has a right to use another person’s body.

    Because people are not things to be used, to satisfy one’s needs.

    Again this is pretty damned basic. This is treating people like people. The fact that this very basic part if being a decent human seems like abstract rhetoric to you is very telling.

    Most premises based on abstractions, especially ethical ones, can easily be turned upside down and result in an equally valid assertion.

    Again, this is not an abstraction, and this is bullshit. The only way to turn “no one has a right to the use of another person’s body without their consent” upside done is to say, “one does have a right to use another person’s body without their consent.” Which is not valid, but is fucking wrong.

    And with all the insults and response from this blog, how can any of you claim to be any better than the MRA’s, PUA’s, etc? I don’t think you are (except maybe that other one that was real shitty with the guy that said Rodger didn’t kill enough women).

    We are better than MRA’s and PUA’s because we believe that women are human beings just like men are. The fact that you can’t see a difference here just because we swear and use snark and mock the hateful and ignorant says way more about you than about us.

    Why do you keep bringing up adult entertainers? No one here would say that adult entertainers being bullied into suicide is okay. We would all condemn it, and the societal double standards and sexism that lies behind the bullying. But there is absolutely no parallels between an adult entertained being bullied into suicide and Rodger. Rodger chose to kill people because he was an entitled, misogynist shit. The only thing that the two cases have in common is misogyny.

    But if women are treated like property, then the laws of capitalism apply to their bodies, not the law of consent and human rights. And in that case, that control is in someone else’s hand, just like when they say there are more empty houses and apartments than homeless people.

    No one here is arguing that women’s bodies are property. We are arguing the exact opposite. Where the hell did you get this from?

    What I’m obviously referring to is ideology, that is, the way that an obvious truth is consistently denied and swept under the rug, even violently sometimes.

    Yes, the obvious truth that Rodger was a misogynist who killed because he hated women is being swept under the rug. We’re not the ones who doing it here.

    Instead of feeding the phony psychiatric industry lie machine with the smug and smarmy criticisms of Rodger’s misogyny and mental health problems, why not highlight Rodger as an example of how patriarchy harms men as much as women sometimes.

    Because Rodger clearly wasn’t harmed by patriarchy. He had a charmed and privileged life, being given anything he ever wanted. Patriarchy never harmed Rodger, he actively benefitted from it. And men are not harmed as much as women under patriarchy.

    And in this patriarchy, different sorts of mental health issues develop with an industry not willing to honestly deal with them since they too are invested in patriarchy and misogyny. Well, that would make too much sense, wouldn’t it.

    That makes no sense. You appear to have no understanding of what a mental illness is and what patriarchy is.

    [A discussion of how mental illness and misogyny intersect in the patriarchy would be interesting, but this isn't whats going on with Rodger. Rodger was not disadvantaged by the patriarchy, nor did mental illness cause his hate or his actions.]

    And I’m not excusing what he did. But that sort of response is typical of how patriarchy socializes young men, isn’t it. And so was the response on this website. Angry scathing invective at what is obvious and self apparent.

    Oh yes, pardon is for being angry when a privileged man kills people after explicitly stating he is going to kill people be because he hates women. Excuse us for being angry when everything under the sun is being used to excuse this man’s actions in order to not place responsibility on him or the misogyny that inspired. Excuse us for being angry at having to live in in a world saturated with misogyny, that is excuses men’s violence against women in all it’s forms and refuses to see a pattern or care very much when women’s bodies are used and abused. Oh yes, what typical stooges of the patriarchy we are to be pissed off at the patriarchy!

    BLS, you make no damned sense.

  10. Rodger as an example of how patriarchy harms men as much as women sometimes.

    So you’re saying we should show the same sympathy towards Rodger as his victims? Or that we should feel equally bad for the male victims? Someone has already asserted the second earlier in this thread. If the first, fuck you.

  11. cassandrakitty

    Sheety should hire himself out as a contortionist. He sure is pretzelling his argument to a remarkable degree in order to try to justify the idea that unequivocally condemning murder motivated by misogyny is similar to as just as bad as writing date rape how-to’s/instructing your readers to never convict a rapist. What really not particularly demanding ethical bar will he attempt to limbo under next? Find out on the next edition of As The Troll Whinges.

  12. Most premises based on abstractions, especially ethical ones, can easily be turned upside down and result in an equally valid assertion.

    Have any way of proving that?

  13. Let’s test that idea. Take the ethical premise “human life is inherently of value.” Turn that upside down and you get…?

  14. cassandrakitty

    Let’s try it! Slavery is bad because people should never be treated like property. Go on, Sheety, limbo your way right under that bar and do the whole turning an ethical abstraction upside down thing. You’ve already demonstrated just how ethically, um, let’s be nice and call it “flexible” you can be.

  15. Black Linen Sheets

    @cassandrakitty

    Do you realize how many times I’ve been through this with people like you. I come to sites like these mostly to remind myself that I am not the crazy one.

    All this is shallow and by now lack novelty for me. But things don’t seem to change much. You guys have to step up your game or get out. It’s really painful for me.

  16. Haha, BLS the newcomer troll wants all the regular commenters to gt out.

    2

  17. Is BLS on drugs. Hir comments make no sense.

  18. Come on come on come on
    10

  19. This is awesome!!!

  20. 15

  21. Shit

    1

  22. Sparky: You hit a savepoint so you only have to go back to 10 :)

    11

  23. Oh, like a videogame.

    12

  24. BLS: Of course I do. Consent is a condition for entitlement when talking about sex. Sparky just doesn’t get it because I am clearly putting consent as a precondition to being entitled to sex.

    Nope. Consent is conditional, not absolute. It can be revoked. That means there is never an entitlement to sex. This most recentlu made something of a splash in some circles (esp. feminist) when some people said marriage created an entitlement to sex, i.e. it’s impossible for a husband to rape their own wife.

    But what about rights? Because sex is part of human nature and humans have a right to their human nature.

    What a load of bollocks. Violence is a part of human nature too. Doesn’t mean I have a right to beat someone senseless if they piss me off.

    That’s what I mean when I say I would rather live in the real world instead of the world of abstractions.

    Says the person who abstracts that “human nature = rights”.

    Instead of feeding the phony psychiatric industry lie machine with the smug and smarmy criticisms of Rodger’s misogyny and mental health problems, why not highlight Rodger as an example of how patriarchy harms men as much as women sometimes

    Because he’s not a very good example of it, and the pretenses that he is are based on tendentious rhetorical flourishes which equate the deaths of the men in the crimes of Rodger, and the declared intent he had to kill as many women as possible.

    Angry scathing invective at what is obvious and self apparent, that is his rampant misogyny. There, I finished the sentence you left unfinished.

    Do you realize how many times I’ve been through this with people like you.

    I’d like to think every time you try to make this case. I’d guess a few times less than that, on the assumption that you don’t always hang out with people who have a decent moral compass.

  25. Argenti,
    Of course I do. Consent is a condition for entitlement when talking about sex. Sparky just doesn’t get it because I am clearly putting consent as a precondition to being entitled to sex.

    Except it is not. Entitlement still implies being in a position upon which you will or must get something, that is, “it comes with the title”. In your example, what happens if after setting up a date with the lovely harpy three oceans over, I think better of mating with a half-bird half woman who would use my eyes to decorate her nest? Does my withdrawal of consent in any way still entitle her to my eyeballs in her rustic interior design schemes?
    Entitltement isn’t the word you’re looking for.

    But what about rights? Because sex is part of human nature and humans have a right to their human nature. But that could change. Not only our rights but our human nature. Science is scary.

    Which means you start of with Wrong and are led into further Wrong. I get what you’re trying to do here, taking the principle (“Consent”) and making it into a suddenly bad thing by way of careful analysis and interpretation, but it’s not how it works and you have to be a lot sharper if you want to make the point you’re trying to make. Because rights aren’t about human nature, they’re about specifically stated things like shelter or protetion or speech. “Human nature” is so vast and vague a concept that we don’t use it as basis for legal codes.

    Also science is scary? Perhaps this dancing penguin robot will tide you over

    Maybe I was too harsh calling you guys fake feminists, but you guys definitely are rhetoric heavy. That’s what I mean when I say I would rather live in the real world instead of the world of abstractions.

    That’s great, because you don’t seem to be too good with abstractions.

    Most premises based on abstractions, especially ethical ones, can easily be turned upside down and result in an equally valid assertion.

    No they don’t. You have a measuring stick for “equally valid”, so unless you’re postulating that the desire to live is not an inherently logical statement by an individual being because evolution creates a false universe where that is no more than the selfish desire of flesh and meat, then the notion that say: “People should not be harmed” is much more valid than “People should be harmed”, because we have validity measuring tests like: “Are we harming people with our princinples?”

    So my belief is that a lot of rhetorical feminism simply results in retributive finger pointing in an opportunistic way that actually ends up serving patriarchy.

    That’s an interesting belief – but it only stems from the fact that you think that ethically charged statements can be flipped and remain equally valid.

    “Some men objectify women and turn them into sex objects” is not the same thing as “Some women objectify men and turn them into success objects” – no matter how many times Warren Farrell might write it in a book or MRA’s might argue it out. See if you can guess why.

    Think about MRA’s. Do men not deserve rights? Of course they do, everyone does, but what really matters is not the words men and rights but what those words end up encouraging in the real world.

    I completely agree

    And my belief is that a lot of rhetorical feminism is guilty of this too, just from the other side of things.

    but this makes no sense, unless you’re actually and truly stating that rhetorical feminism is the same as rethorical masculinism, when that feminism claims “Some men rape women, and this is bad, because women are people” and that masculism claims “Some women deserve to be raped, because they’re sluts, and also evil”.

    The fundamental problem with Rodger and similar cases is this imo:
    Pull up any porn website and you see millions upon millions of young women, often very attractive, doing horrible things for chump change much of the time. Some have even been bullied and shamed to suicide. Rodger was a nice middle (upper-middle) class kid that wasn’t noticeably messed up or unattractive.

    But if women are treated like property, then the laws of capitalism apply to their bodies, not the law of consent and human rights. And in that case, that control is in someone else’s hand, just like when they say there are more empty houses and apartments than homeless people.

    … what? I mean yes, but what? The sentences don’t relate to each other, but each is individiually true. Being self contained renders the entire thing kind of odd. Many young women are in porn! Rodgers was so nice that the police didn’t think of him as a particularly strange person! If women are property then supply and demand are used to regulate their bodies instead of empathy! If so, that means the laws of supply and demand will do the same as it does for the housing market, where sometimes there are more empty houses than there are homeless to fill them if they were given for free

    therefore it is my opinion that we shall burn the Eiffel Tower to the ground and reinstate the flint rock as prime barter currency

    What I’m obviously referring to is ideology, that is, the way that an obvious truth is consistently denied and swept under the rug, even violently sometimes. And with all the insults and response from this blog, how can any of you claim to be any better than the MRA’s, PUA’s, etc? I don’t think you are (except maybe that other one that was real shitty with the guy that said Rodger didn’t kill enough women).

    Glad you think killing women is bad. Odd how you can’t go from there to thinking how claiming that feminists are out to castrate all men and turn them into beta supporters for bastard children is the same as the claim that women and men should have equal rights.

    What is this, Moshe Feldenkrais’ The Elusive Obvious?

    Instead of feeding the phony psychiatric industry lie machine with the smug and smarmy criticisms of Rodger’s misogyny and mental health problems, why not highlight Rodger as an example of how patriarchy harms men as much as women sometimes. And in this patriarchy, different sorts of mental health issues develop with an industry not willing to honestly deal with them since they too are invested in patriarchy and misogyny. Well, that would make too much sense, wouldn’t it.

    Because it’s not the case? The man machine gunned people to death. Using that as some trite political gain is a bit weird. It’s bad for everyone when people go out and shoot other people. That’s rather obvious. And by the way an ethical abstraction I doubt you can turn on your head to produce an equally valid statement.

    I mean, I agree, but again, your sentences don’t really relate to each other, or to anything in particular. We criticize Rodger’s misogyny because it’s a prime cause of what happened, and obivously notions of patriarchy, entitlement and the ideas of women and men he had in his head play into that – but I think you’ll rather find that people here were all quite keen on not going on about his mental health “problems”, because they’re pretty irrelevant really. And how does that relate to the psychiatric industry? Or capitalism regulating women’s bodies and homeless people and the buildings?

    And I’m not excusing what he did. But that sort of response is typical of how patriarchy socializes young men, isn’t it. And so was the response on this website. Angry scathing invective at what is obvious and self apparent.

    But it isn’t always so I think it deserves to be mentioned.

    Angry scatching invective at what is obvious and self apparent is odd, given that if things were so obvious and self apparent, you wouldn’t be able to find endless examples of it not being obvious or self apparent. Read through the archives for any number of “But it wasn’t really about patriarchy or misogyny, it was…”.
    You’re an odd duck.

  26. Hey, Sheets, if you want to have sex, ain’t nobody stopping you from fucking your hand. You don’t get a right to anyone else’s.

    13

  27. Sheety, you haven’t yet come up with an equally valid inverse statement to “slavery is wrong.”

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 8,704 other followers

%d bloggers like this: