A sex offender in Washington state who has spent most of his life behind bars, convicted of an assortment of different crimes ranging from check kiting to child molestation, is close to his release date. Not surprisingly, given his long history of preying on young girls, prosecutors are pushing for him to be sent instead to a facility for sexual predators, as a recent story on SeattlePI.com notes.
A state psychologist has described Donald “Theo” Holmes as a remorseless psychopath and a pathological liar who has managed to rack up an impressive array of crimes, many involving underage girls, during his stints outside of prison. As the psychologist observed:
“He uses women and children to feed his sexual desires, and he uses other members of society to supply him with money, clothes, and cars that make him look important and fuel the grandiosity which is an ingrained part of his personality. …
“He admits to multiple sexual conquests and is proud of the fact that he has 22 children and that he has had mothers and daughters … pregnant at the same time with his child.”
Holmes, for his part, simply describes himself as a “womanizer.” Apparently 12-year-old girls count as “women” in his world.
Over on The Spearhead, W.F. Price uses this case as an example of what is wrong with, you guessed it, women.
Fathering 22 children is not easy even without spending so much time incarcerated, so one can only assume that his criminality had absolutely no ill effect on his success with women. In fact, it may have enhanced his love life.
Here again, we see that being a good man has nothing to do with one’s success with women, and often is an impediment. One of the big lies of feminism is that women will shower affection on well-behaved men, and have no desire for the low-life thugs of society. Sadly, this is not the case.
Perhaps the most important message we can get out there to young men is that there is little connection between what turns women on and what is objectively good for society.
I don’t know any feminists who think that women only go for “good” guys; indeed, the feminists I know spend a lot of time discussing (and trying to help) women who are or were involved with not-so-good-guys. Evidently the imaginary feminists Price hangs out with, though, are reincarnations of Victorians who assume all women are perfect little angels.
Price is bad enough. Do we have to look at the comments too? Yes, yes we do. Let’s start with the very first one, from Opus, who asked:
but is he really so bad [?]… there is nothing to suggest that the minors were anything other than enthusiatic. Whatever views one may have as to the age of consent, the girls were not infants or children but adolescents.
Yep, in Opus’ mind, sex with 12- and 14-year-olds is no problem, so long as we assume (based on nothing) that they were “enthusiastic” about it. Last I checked, this comment had 16 upvotes and only 3 downvotes, so apparently he’s not the only one willing to blame underage girls for being raped. Sorry, having “enthusiastic” sex with a career criminal many decades older than them.
Meanwhile, Anonymous Reader (in another heavily upvoted comment) takes aim at:
the state of Washington. There’s no way this guy could have spawned 22 children if he had to support them on his own. How many are on AFDC, WIC or other welfare programs, paid for by ordinary, working Beta men? Yes, this is a result of liberalism but it also is a result of feminism.
AFDC and WIC are, of course, intended to make sure that the children of poor women don’t, you know, starve to death. Now, I’m pretty sure Holmes wouldn’t have given a shit if his kids all starved. But apparently neither would Anonymous and his numerous upvoters. Why exactly should the children – some of whom may well be the result of the rape of underage girls — have to pay the price for Holmes’ despicable actions?
Yes, you can blame liberalism and feminism for the fact that these children are being fed. That’s not a bad thing. The actions of Holmes weren’t the actions of a liberal or a feminist; they were the actions of a seemingly psychopathic sexual predator who assumed, like many traditionalist men, that women and girls are put on this earth for men to use as they see fit.
NOTE: I didn’t set out today to write yet another post about The Spearhead. But I read Price’s post and sort of had to say something. My next post will have nothing to do with The Spearhead. I promise.
EDITED TO ADD: Picture credit: Zampieri, “God reprimanding Adam and Eve,” detail; photo G. Piolle.
So, Anonymous Reader thinks Holmes should be forced to pay child support for 22 kids? Or what else is supposed to stop him from fathering more, exactly?
@clairedammit
But if the state makes him pay child support and/or puts him in jail for not supporting the children he fathered that too is one of the awful, awful trespasses feminism and liberalism have visited upon fine, upstanding men!
WTF? It’s a good comment. The point is that it should not fall to betas and omegas (MEN, of course) to pay for the of a psychopathic alpha (and yes, he is presumably an alpha, due to the amount of women he has slept with). But that’s how it is. Not even other alphas pay because alphas either ditch their responsibilities (and given alpha privilege, they are allowed), or use their unique position as alpha men to get women to pay for it, or are members of the upper class and skirt taxes. This is a difficult problem but- here’s Anonymous’ real point- no one is even talking about it. Why? It only affects men (betas and omegas no less), and our misandrist society doesn’t care about spit upon men, we’re second class to the alphassholes and wymynynynyn.
I always find it superbly creepy when people ascribe adult sexuality, attitudes and maturity to adolescent girls. It’s almost like they don’t see adult women as any more mature than a young teenager, and since there is no difference (in their minds), it’s perfectly fine to have the same sort of relationship with a 14 year old as you’d have with a 24 or 34 year old.
clairedammit: I don’t see that anonymous said Holmes should be supporting the kids, only that “we” shouldn’t have to.
Objection, Assumes facts not in evidence. Nothing in this report says he wasn’t well behaved and charming.
Here again, we see that being a good man has nothing to do with one’s success with women, and often is an impediment. One of the big lies of feminism is that women will shower affection on well-behaved men, and have no desire for the low-life thugs of society. Sadly, this is not the case.
(1) Do W.F. Price and his group of morons really have that much interest in dating the kinds of women who are attracted to inmates and “thugs” to merit this kind of jealousy? Really?
(2) Certain men have been known to prefer awful women over the “good girls” too, y’know.
(3) Some men prefer violent “thug-boy” inmates. Those men are apparently called ATMs. (Scroll down.)
But apparently women are this awful, evil, alien species that as a group deserve scorn and ridicule. Okay.
Bee: They think all women are attracted to such men. It’s only their innate good natures which are keeping them from living a life of sex-filled bliss.
Also: ScienceDaily (July 29, 2010) — Heterosexual women bear the brunt of narcissistic heterosexual men’s hostility, while heterosexual men, gay men and lesbian women provoke a softer reaction, according to psychologist Dr. Scott Keiller from Kent State University at Tuscarawas. This is likely to be due to women’s unparalleled potential for gratifying, or frustrating, men’s narcissism, the author concludes. They are crucial players and even gatekeepers in men’s quests for sexual pleasure, patriarchal power and status.
Fuck fuckety fuck fuck fuck doesn’t it make you sleep just that little bit worse at night knowing what goes on in these fuckwits’ heads? And these are just the literate ones with a keyboard. And it’s the same contradictory diatribe over and over. Women are greedy bitches who only marry alphas – then in the next breath – women are stupid bitches who always go for the bad boys. These subnormal fucks are so heinous they have to make excuses in their lobotomised brains as to why no normal human being will have anything to do with them. I think I need a valium. Sorry folks.
Well, this guy is a childmolesting rapist douche, but I do think that there are massive, massive civil rights violation issue with the idea of keeping one locked up past one’s sentence. Yes, I know the Supreme Court has ruled on this one, but I still disagree, dammit! If you are going to imprison people, you do it with trials with a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, not with “civil commitment”. This is essentially singling out only mentally ill defendents for extra sentences not given to them for their crimes. Civil commitment is bullshit, serious bullshit, in general. If you want to lock up a neurotypical person, you do it for crimes they have committed, proven beyond a resonable doubt, under a sentencing guideline. If you want to lock up a mentally ill person, all you need is a preponderance of the evidence that they are a potential danger to themselves or others (yep, you can have your freedom taken away based on thought crimes with no attempt or act-but only if you are mentally ill). This guy’s getting out of prison earlier than he should for his crimes does not support civil commitment, it supports alteration of the sentencing scheme regarding repeat offending for rape and child molesting.
I cannot believe that not one of these guys seems to care this guy molested children. *sighs*
darksidecat: I’m with you there, wholeheartedly.
@MRAL
Because women don’t pay taxes that feed into WiC and AFDC too? WTF. I work. I pay taxes. And you know what? I don’t give a fuck that some of that money goes to provide food aid.
Because I’m not an entitled asshole and, oddly enough, don’t want kids to starve.
Beth: They don’t think it’s molesting children. They see it as “seducing women”, or perhaps, “letting her wiles win him over”.
The proof they weren’t children? They got pregnant. Once a female is nubile, she stops being a child and becomes a scheming bitch, looking to use sex to trap a man by saddling him with a kid.
Who wants to play a game? We pick random annoyances/issues, and then figure out how it must be women/feminists’ fault. Because how COULDN’T it be?
Suggested topics:
Overfishing of cod in the North Sea
Bathtub hair cloggage
Vuvuzelas
Bush fires in Australia
Difficulty of replacing duvet cover
I’m sure y’all can think of better ones.
Yeah, Linds, I missed the fact that women don’t have to pay taxes into social welfare programs any more. I’d say “sweet!” except that’s one of the few things I’m completely happy about my taxes supporting.
MRAL, could you back up your assertion that only certain men support the social safety net with their tax money?
It’s the “But she wanted it” argument. Just because someone wants something doesn’t mean they should get what they want. Particularly if they are underaged and asking for things available to Adults. If she wanted a bottle of champagne, a speedball and a chainsaw would you buy it for her? No? Likewise! No sex!
If she is a minor, she is an idiot. In retrospect, I was a pretty stupid kid but when I was a kid I thought I was smart and well balanced and made great decisions when I was like Charlie Sheen sans cocaine. It’s with age that wisdom and indeed responsibility were acquired. It’s abuse and that’s what this man should be punished for.
There’s also no evidence that I can see that the mothers of this man’s children *are* on public assistance. It seems like everyone just assumes these women are.
Pro tip, kids: This is what Planned Parenthood is for! Just imagine if those women had access to consistent, reliable, safe and inexpensive birth control. Birth control that Holmes couldn’t sabotage.
It’s interesting how, on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn thread over on Pandagon, there are already rape apologists claiming that even false sexual assault claims follow one around for the rest of one’s life. But here we have Price’s statement, “so one can only assume that his criminality had absolutely no ill effect on his success with women. In fact, it may have enhanced his love life.”
I guess it really is always the woman’s fault.
@Bee:
“(1) Do W.F. Price and his group of morons really have that much interest in dating the kinds of women who are attracted to inmates and “thugs” to merit this kind of jealousy? Really?”
This is how their logic works.
1). Women only go for jerks and bastards.
2). Women don’t go for me because I’m a Nice Guy
3). I’m going to be a jerk and a bastard and it’s all their fault.
Granted, this is a pretty bare-bones model of how their thought processes work regarding women, but it fits 99% of whatever they’re yammering on about at the moment. It always boils down to “I don’t want to be a jerk but women are making me do it because they hate men. Also, when they end up with bad men, they deserve it and it never has anything to do with bad men being good liars.”.
To my eternal shame, the reason I know what makes most of them tick is I used to believe that bullshit. Now you might think this would make me have a bit more empathy for them. I don’t. There is a point in their lives where they have to consciously start shutting out anything that contradicts the gospel of “women are bitches”. It’s like dealing with white supremacists. Maintaining that kind of ignorance in this age of information actually takes work and someone that devoted to ignorance gets no pity from me.
Lady Victoria wrote : “I always find it superbly creepy when people ascribe adult sexuality, attitudes and maturity to adolescent girls. It’s almost like they don’t see adult women as any more mature than a young teenager, and since there is no difference (in their minds), it’s perfectly fine to have the same sort of relationship with a 14 year old as you’d have with a 24 or 34 year old.”
Speaking as a 15 year old girl, I think its really creepy that you want to pretend that I’m a small child simply because you know that girls my age are better looking than you.
My body is MINE to do with as I like. What makes you different to the man who told women not to dress sexily?
And by the way, 24 year olds are still adolescents – the brain doesn’t stop developing until the late 20’s. Check your facts.
Pecunium
Thats not a scientific article, its an ideological screed.
And the psychopath, it does appear that he is more successful with women than the average man, which is the point that Welmer was making.
Manboobz, congratulations on your skill at spin doctoring, your silent employers chose well.
The only comment I have is the bogus feminist claim of “rape” if a man is 30 and a woman is 16. How does the magical age of 18 (soon to be 21 internationally if the UN has it’s way), translate into “age of consent?”
As always women/feminist lead the charge into the realm of nonsense with their power dynamic pseudo-psychology. Where a man might either love or lust after a 16 year old girl, (neither of which is about power). A woman will claim a “power” dynamic. The only conclusion is women either inherently, or have been indoctrinated to think this way and project their thinking process onto the way they percieve men think. Which simply isn’t the case.
@Pecunium…After to going to the link you provided and reading the article, along with a multitude of other non-scientific articles I notice science and opinion seem to have combined into an all encompassing truth. Just because you slap the word “science” on an opinion fluff piece doesn’t make it valid. One persons biased opinion backed by nothing carries the same value as I’m about to deposit in the toilet.
The picture with this speaks volumes except these morons would be saying “She made me do it.”
And it’s the same contradictory diatribe over and over. Women are greedy bitches who only marry alphas – then in the next breath – women are stupid bitches who always go for the bad boys.
That’s not really a contradiction. Many alphas will also have a ‘bad boy’ vibe. I can’t remember the details, but there was a study done recently which showed that men who exhibited typical ‘bad boy’ traits had more sexual partners on the whole.
edit: found it.