Blog Archives

Pickup guru Roosh V: Unmarried women who don’t live with their parents are sluts

Evil slut in her den of depravity

Evil slut in her den of depravity

I‘ve been trying to avoid reading, much less writing about, the human stain and pickup guru who calls himself Roosh V. But I couldn’t keep myself away from his most recent post, an appalling little exercise called The Most Reliable Way To Tell If A Girl Is A Slut,which turns out to be even more appalling than its title.

Roosh, you see, has figured out a simple one-question test to determine the sluttiness of any woman. Let’s let him explain:

Many girls go to great lengths to hide their slutty past, knowing deep down the low value it conveys for being a suitable long-term partner, but there is one easy indicator that should tell you beyond a reasonable doubt whether she is a slut or not.

Has she lived on her own?

I believe my response to this is best illustrated by the following video of Don Draper saying “what?”

Let me just add:

HAS SHE LIVED ON HER OWN?

Are you exclusively dating high school girls?

If she’s an adult, or at least an adult somewhere in the vicinity of your own age, OF COURSE SHE’S LIVED ON HER OWN.

Yes, yes, I know, given this economy it’s true that some young people – mostly young men – are living at home a little longer these days than in the past, but the overwhelming majority have moved out by their mid-twenties. You’re 35 years old, dude.

Roosh continues:

If she has lived away from her parents for more than a year, she has—at the minimum—slept with many men whose last names she did not know, including one-night stands that did not involve condoms.

Dude, do you even know the first names of the women you sleep with? And haven’t you bragged endlessly about how you “raw dog it” with women? Weren’t you “raw dogging it” even when you were afraid you had AIDS? (Those are rhetorical questions; I already know that the answers are yes, and yes.)

An “independent” girl, removed from the constraints of a nuclear family home and its rules, curfew, and the concern of good parents, will allow the slutty dick gobbler within her to be released.

Women engaging in consensual sex that they enjoy … with someone else? THE END OF THE WORLD. Raping women who are too drunk to consent? According to Roosh himself, it’s “what I do.”

In other words, a natural-born slut who lives on her own will have far more sexual partners than if she lives with parents of average skill who require their daughter to be home by midnight.

Amazing deduction, Sherlock. And if she’s a nun, she’ll probably be having even less sex. The question is: why are you, as 35 year old man, regularly pursuing women young enough to live with their parents?

Give a man leeway in living life and he does great things, but give a woman this same freedom and she fully embraces the whore lifestyle, unable to stop from getting her fill of cock.

Really? Here are some young men who have recently started living on their own; I’m not sure that what they are doing could really be described as a “great thing.” (Content Warning: Drunk dudes hitting each other in the head with boards.)

If you want to estimate a girl’s notch count, simply multiple the number of years she has lived on her own by the number 3. If she has lived on campus in college for four years and then moved to a large city for two more, you can rest assured she’s had over 15 cocks in her vagina, and god knows how many more in her mouth.

Not that anyone’s worth is determined by how many penises they’ve had in their vagina, or anywhere else, but I feel I should note that these figures, clearly pulled from the  Journal of Roosh’s Own Ass, are completely wrong.

According to people who’ve actually studied human sexuality, his number is just a teensy bit high. And by “teensy” I mean they’re off by an order of magnitude. According to one 2005 study, women in their 30s and early 40s report that they’ve had only 4 male sexual partners, on average, not the 36 to 78 that Roosh’s formula would predict for women who move out on their own at the age of 18 to go to college.

There are definite exceptions for girls who are relationship minded and had boyfriends of more than one year in length, but unless she mentions this, you’re interacting with a slut and should proceed accordingly by escorting her home and asking if you can use her bathroom. Then you must fornicate with her like so many other men.

Yeah, that’s really … creepy. You lie to get into her home, then proceed as if, as a slut, she’s already consented to sex?

You may be thinking the following: “Many Western girls live alone, at least 50%. Does that mean that over 50% of American girls are sluts?” That’s exactly what it means. Independence in women drives them to disempowering sexual behaviors that oppose motherly or wife behaviors. You must be skeptical of girls who have lived alone if you want a serious relationship.

At least if you want a relationship with a creepy, judgmental asshole who thinks like Roosh.

[T]here is absolutely no need for a girl to be independent by living alone without a husband unless you want her holes to be used as a real-life enactment of 50 Shades Of Grey by many strange men.

Well, that is, if you assume that 1) all women can magically find men, whether their father or a husband, who will pay all their bills and  2) Roosh’s opinions about any given woman’s sexual life matter more than the opinions of the woman herself.

If you end up having a daughter of your own, I highly recommend you limit her financial independence before she finds a husband. Refrain from giving her Think & Grow Rich advice that would be better suited for your son. Otherwise, she’ll become a slut who gives it up to any man who dances a good clown jig.

So: prepare your daughter to be dependent for her very existence on dudes who think like Roosh.

That may be the worst parenting advice I’ve ever heard. Then again, it’s from Roosh.

About these ads

Richard Dawkins opens mouth, inserts foot, mumbles something about “mild pedophilia” again

A young Richard Dawkins contemplates the beauty of the universe.

A young Richard Dawkins contemplates the beauty of the universe.

Apparently Richard Dawkins was worried that people might have forgotten what an asshat he is. So, helpful fellow that he is, he decided to give us all a demonstration of why he’s one of the atheist movement’s biggest liabilities, a “humanist” who has trouble remembering to act human.

Earlier today Dawkins decided, for some reason, that he needed to remind the people of the world of a fairly basic point of logic, and so he took to Twitter and thumbed out this little thought:

 Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins  ·  5h  X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of X, go away and don't come back until you've learned how to think logically.

However petulantly phrased this is, the basic logic is sound: If I say that Hitler was worse than Stalin, I’m not endorsing either Hitler or Stalin. Unless I add “and Stalin was totally awesome and I endorse him” at the end.

The trouble is that Dawkins didn’t stop with this one tweet. He decided to illustrate his point with some examples. Some really terrible examples.

    Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 5h      Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.     Details         Reply         189 Retweet         287 Favorite  Richard DawkinsVerified account ‏@RichardDawkins  Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.Yep, that’s right. He decided to do what comedians call a “callback” to some terrible comments he made last year about what he perversely described as “mild pedophilia.” And then he added asshattery to asshattery by suggesting a similar distinction between “date rape” and “stranger rape.”

Anyone seeing these comments as insensitive twaddle designed to minimize both “mild” pedophilia and date rape has good reason to do so. As you may recall, in the earlier controversy about so-called “mild” pedophilia, Dawkins told an interviewer for the Times magazine that

I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.

He went on to tell the interviewer that when he was a child one of his school masters had “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.” But, he added, he didn’t think that this sort of “mild touching up” had done him, or any of the classmates also victimized by the teacher, any “lasting harm.”

Huh. If Dawkins says that a teacher groping him was no big deal, I guess this kind of “mild” abuse shouldn’t be a big deal for anyone else, either, huh?

I’m pretty sure there’s some sort of logical fallacy here.

Given his history of minimizing these “mild” sexual crimes, it’s not a surprise that his crass tweets today inspired a bit of a twitterstorm.

Dawkins has responded with his typical petulance, and has stubbornly defended his comments as an exercise in pure logic that his critics are too irrational to understand.

If you take a few moments to go through his timeline you’ll find many more tweets and retweets reiterating this “argument.” Dawkins is not the sort of person to admit to mistakes. Indeed, he so regularly puts his foot in his mouth it’s hard not to conclude that he must like the taste of shoe leather.

But these recurring controversies can’t be doing much for his reputation. Indeed, they seem to cause more and more people to wonder why anyone takes Dawkins seriously on any subject other than biology. Even his critics on Twitter are growing a bit weary.

Seems like it. I’m beginning to wonder why any atheists — at least those who are not also asshats — continue to think of Dawkins as an ally of any kind.

Click my kitty to see the smash hit new blog!

Click my kitty to see the smash hit new blog!

 

How to get upvotes on The Spearhead: Violent rape fantasy edition

So I found this lovely little shoutout in the comments to an inane post by W.F. Price on The Spearhead last week.

Let me just preface it with a big TRIGGER WARNING for its violent rape fantasy.

trigger-warning_design

geographybeefinalisthimself February 12, 2014 at 13:02      “Is there any amount of androsphere content that Manboobz Futrelle can read, that will make him switch sides? No.”      A conservative is normally a liberal who has been mugged by reality. Futrelle would have to get ass-raped by reality so many times that he loses bowel control and contracts HIV and multiple incurable STDs before he would realize that feminism has zero benefit for men. Even after getting that badly burned, every single man will think, if he can come to his senses now, he could have come to his senses decades earlier.     Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

Ten upvotes. No downvotes.

I guess that’s technically a rape metaphor, but it’s the most graphic rape metaphor I’ve run across in a long time.

If you ever find yourself wondering why the so-called Men’s Rights movement has never done, as far as I can tell, a single fucking thing for male victims of rape — other than rant about it online in an attempt to one-up feminists — I think this comment suggests one highly plausible explanation: because many if not most MRAs don’t actually feel empathy for the vast majority of male rape victims, who are, after all, men in prison raped by other men. They see rape as an appropriate punishment for men they don’t like, and many actually relish the thought of certain men being raped.

Indeed, even the self-described “men’s human rights activists” at A Voice for Men think that rape jokes about men they don’t like are hilarious.

I mean, it goes without saying that MRAs generally have little or no empathy for women who are raped, and indulge in rape jokes about women all the fucking time, but you’d think they’d do a better job of at least pretending to care about raped men.

If you’re interested in an organization that actually does care about victims of rape and other forms of sexual abuse in prison — regardless of the gender of the victim  — you may want to check out Just Detention International.

James Taranto of the WSJ: Drunk women who are raped may be as guilty as their rapists

James Taranto, saying something annoying

James Taranto, saying something terrible

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto is probably the closest thing to an authentic Men’s Rights Activist there is operating in the mainstream media today, by which I mean he regularly puts forth “arguments” on gender issues that are breathtaking in their backwardness.

His latest, er, contribution to the gender debate? A column in which he suggested that drunk women who are raped on college campuses by drunk men are as guilty as their rapists. No, really. Here’s his argument, such as it is:

If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

Huh. I’m pretty sure we determine the victim of a rape not on demographics but based on WHICH PERSON RAPED THE OTHER PERSON. Much in the way we would charge a drunken person who shot another drunken person with shooting that person, rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying, well, they were both drunk, so no harm no foul, right?

For a longer take on the issue, check out this piece over on Media Matters.

Media Matters has also assembled a nice, and mercifully rather brief, media montage of some of Taranto’s other pronouncements on gender issues. See if you can make it to the end without pulling out all of your hair.

A Voice for Men vs the Table of Misandry. Also: MAN BOOBZ SLIGHTLY BEFORE CHRISTMAS ART CONTEST

It's coming for you! RUN!

It’s coming for you! RUN!

Those of you who have been waiting with bated breath to hear what the “editors” of our favorite men’s rights hate site, A Voice for Men, think of the Occidental College fiasco can now unbate their breath, as AVFM head boy Paul Elam has stepped forward to explain it all to us in a post that contains quite possibly the most ridiculous two sentences ever written about higher education:

Read the rest of this entry

As the worms turn: Men’s Rights subreddit mod now defends spamming Occidental College with false rape reports

Oh, Men’s Rightsers, can you just make up your minds? Only a couple of days after blaming trolls for the spamming of Occidental College’s rape reporting site with false accusations, rather than acknowledging it as the work of Men’s Rightsers in his own subreddit who were proudly encouraging and taking credit for it themselves, Men’s Rights subreddit mod sillymod is now defending the false rape reporting as “unpopular” but thought-provoking activism.

sillymod 6 points 7 hours ago (13|7)  First you have to believe that we did something wrong in order to want to get our reputation back. Sometimes people fighting for a cause are going to do something that is unpopular in order to make a statement.  I don't think we do need to get our reputation back. I think the act stands for itself, and it will get people to stop and think.      permalink     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]TheIdesOfLight [+20] 15 points 4 hours ago (22|7)  So I guess that whole "We were trolled"/"It was SRS!" bullshit is off the table? You can't pass the buck and convince yourselves everyone else is guilty but you and now it's become an act of bravery?  Wow.  Yeah, watching you flip flop on this for the past three days has been both alarming and rewarding. You didn't make any kind of statement, Sillymod. The entire internet and media is sneering at you and you still can't just say WE DID A TERRIBLE THING. PERHAPS WE SHOULD REFLECT ON IT AS A WHOLE.      permalink     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]ninioquiroz 6 points 3 hours ago (12|6)  No, because that would require a level of maturity and self-awareness that this "movement" clearly lacks.  But, does anybody else think feminists are to blame for all the world's problems?

This whole exchange is worth reading — it continues on for a number of comments beyond this, with sillymod’s rationalizations becoming increasingly baroque. It’s extremely rare to see critical remarks like those from TheIdesOfLight actually get upvoted in the Men’s Rights subreddit. The Occidental College fiasco has divided the Men’s Rights subreddit like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Some are appalled by it; others are digging in their heels.

Speaking of which, here’s former subreddit mod Celda defending the false rape reports in much more straightforward terms than sillymod:

Celda [-1] 5 points 18 hours ago (9|4)  I agree that the subreddit deserves some responsibility for that.  But - there was nothing wrong with those actions.  I saw the news articles in which it says they were spammed with hundreds of reports, of being raped by fictional characters, accusing the staff of the Dean's Office (the form is run by the Dean's Office), etc.  Those reports are non-harmful - and the goal of shutting down the online form is quite a laudable one.  I am actually quite disgusted by the number of people who are defending the existence of an anonymous online form intended for reporting people as rapists.

Elsewhere, Celda has called the false reporting “quite moral and laudable.”

Thanks to the AgainstMensRights subreddit — which, again, is not actually against rights for men, but against the reactionary clusterfuck that is the Men’s Rights movement — for keeping close track on all this.

A Voice for Men doubles down: how dishwashers, TV dinners, and marital rape laws are rendering women obsolete. Also, the apocalypse.

Not the apology that Clint Carpentier is looking for.

Not the apology that Clint Carpentier is looking for.

We met new A Voice for Men writer Clint Carpentier earlier this week, when we took a look at a recent post of his waxing nostalgic about the good old days before marital rape laws, when wives couldn’t say “no” to their husbands and expect the law to take this no any more seriously than a husband intent on rape.

In a second posting, he’s doubled down on the whole marital rape thing and incorporated into a vast and fantastical vision of the past and future of humankind that bears so little resemblance to reality that it’s worth quoting in detail as a sort of case study in Men Going Their Own Way delusions.

Read the rest of this entry

Matt Forney — yes, THAT guy — dances on Nelson Mandela’s grave

Nelson Mandela, RIP

Nelson Mandela, RIP

For more proof that bigotries flock together, let’s take a look at some tweets the always despicable Matt Forney made today after learning of the death of Nelson Mandela:

His “statistical evidence” of an alleged “white genocide” in South Africa? A page that links to a curious document full of unsourced claims and hysterical language, and which refers to South Africa’s former apartheid system as “so-called apartheid.” (It’s a pdf; TRIGGER WARNING for gruesome pictures of murder victims.)

Read the rest of this entry

CDC: MRA claims that “40% of rapists are women” are based on bad math and misuse of our data

Standard_adding_machine

Feminists often complain, with considerable justification, that Men’s Rights Activists try to turn every conversation about women’s issues into a game of “what about the men?” You’re talking about female rape victims — well, what about the male rape victims?

The trouble with this strategy, from the point of view of the Men’s Rights Activists anyway, is that this little “gotcha” is much less of a “gotcha” then they’d like it to be.

In the case of rape, for example, feminists are well aware that men are raped as well: the “Don’t Be That Guy” ad campaign, which sent so many MRAs into hysterics, focused on male victims as well as female ones. The emergency room rape advocate organization that a friend of mine volunteers for  provides advocacy for victims regardless of gender.

So many MRAs have started playing another game: trying to twist the conversation around in order to cast women as the villains. Rape is a bit tough for them here, since the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. So MRAs talk about the alleged epidemic of female false accusers instead. Or they change the topic entirely and make dead baby jokes (see my post yesterday).

Recently, MRAs have tried a new strategy, seizing on data from The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a massive study conducted in 2010 under the aegis of the Centers for Disease Control, to claim that “40% of rapists are women.”

Read the rest of this entry

For A Voice for Men, and its Edmonton offshoot, terrifying women is a form of “human rights activism.”

Men's Rights Edmonton activist at work

Men’s Rights Edmonton activist at work

So the self-described “human rights activists” at A Voice for Men have found three more women to harass. Here’s the story, which for many of you will have a depressingly familiar ring:

Members of Men’s Rights Edmonton, a small group that is for all intents and purposes a local chapter of A Voice for Men, has been putting up pictures targeting Lise Gotell, the chair of women’s and gender studies at the University of Alberta. The pictures, which seem inspired by “Wanted” posters of yore, feature a large portrait of Gotell and the caption:

Read the rest of this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,327 other followers

%d bloggers like this: