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 is being an alpha defined purely by having lots of sexual partners? I was under the impression that being ‘manly’ and rich was important?
They probably have more sexual partners because they lie to them to get what they want. “Game” is really just lessons in how to be a sneaky, lying jerk.
They’re all important. In animal packs, the alpha male is the strongest/most dominant as well as having the pick of partners. In humans, alpha men are also typically ‘bad boys’. They get whoever they want. Good guys settle and tell themselves it’s because they’re in love. It’s not rocket science, here. 😛
MRAL – “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 know a couple of posters have already commented on this…but really? You are going to assert that women don’t pay taxes? I generally think that your comments are the statements of a young man who has been jaded by life and is trying to find a way to explain your inability to form relationships with women in a way that doesn’t involve introspection. Today, however, it appears that you are purposefully making false statements (i.e., women don’t pay taxes that support social programs). Ok, you think society “spits” upon “omega’s” (and apparently now “betas”?), by which you mean treats them poorly, if I understood the description of “spit” you gave on a previous thread…but you cannot honestly believe that those “classes” of men are the only people who pay taxes, which are used to support social welfare programs, can you?
RE Vuvuzelas, in that case, women have also ruined Lord of the Rings!
*Shrug.* Ion, I seem to recall that statistically, blonde women have slightly more sexual partners than brunettes. But this doesn’t lead me to conclude that
(1) Guys only go for blondes
(2) Brunettes are an oppressed sexual underclass
(3) Men are bastards.
All of those would be frankly absurd conclusions.
So the MRA “logic” doesn’t really impress me.
Good guys settle and tell themselves it’s because they’re in love.
It couldn’t possibly be because they… ARE in love? They’d actually rather have a conniving gold-digging bitch just because she’s hot? That sounds pretty misandrist to me. Why do you have such a low opinion of men?
Simone, as a brunette, I finally understand how oppressed I am by the system by which blonds get more dates. Thanks for enlightening me!
What’s also absent from these studies is an acknowledgement that a person’s behavior influences how many partners they have, independent of how attractive they are. So it’s very possible that the “dark triad” isn’t inherently hawt; rather, men with dark triad characteristics are more likely to engage in (skanky) behaviors which lead to having many short-term affairs.
As an analogy, I am less “attractive” than many of my current classmates, by any conventional measure. And yet, I have more romantic success than many of my cuter, smarter peers. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that I’m relatively extroverted; I like dating; and I’m relatively open-minded about partner selection. (I have standards, but I don’t have a rigid “type.”) It’s not because I’m inherently hawt.
If you really want short term affairs; you’re incredibly confident; and you have no shame about manipulating people; then of course you’re more likely to have short term affairs than a “nice guy.” The “nice guy” is less likely to really want a short term affair, less likely to put himself out there, and unwilling to manipulate potential partners.
That doesn’t really say anything about the attractiveness of the dark triad, per se.
Comrade Svilova, I’m a brunette too.
Sadly, there has been no word from science, as yet, on the sexual status of women with hot pink “manic panic” highlights.
“… there was a study done recently which showed that men who exhibited typical ‘bad boy’ traits had more sexual partners on the whole.” (Ion)
Maybe because a lot of them might not care about having consensual sexual partners? If a man didn’t think women had a right to say no to his advances, he probably would get more sex overall than someone who feels both partners should be consenting, if only because he didn’t take their boundaries into account. Of course, we feminists would call that rape.
Amnesia – I really don’t think rape is required to have more partners. I think that’s a little unfair. It doesn’t even require deception – it just requires knowing how to seek out people who are also interested in short flings and one-night-stands.
Of course equating “more partners” with “more sex” is also problematic. Someone can have a new one-night-stand every month and rack up a lifetime number that’s very impressive but still have less overall sex than the monogamous couple that has sex twice a week for several years.
As Simone pointed out, someone who is only looking for short term flings and someone who wants a mutually respectful relationship will approach dating differently.
Different goals, different approaches, different outcome. Would a guy who is interested in a mutually respectful relationship want to be with the women who have short term flings with jerks? It seems like a major point of incompatibility.
If it’s that “omegas” want short term flings with hot women, and they just don’t have the mojo to make that happen, then why blame the women? A woman who doesn’t value you because she’s shallow or because you don’t have enough money or because she “wants” to be treated poorly by a bad boy doesn’t sound all that attractive. Again, seems like a major incompatibility.
I guess I’d rather have fewer partners but have them be people who respect me and value me for what I have to offer…
Ion: I’d like to see the study itself. The article used some very specific language (e.g. psychopath) with some very specific meanings, and I don’t think the study actually said it that way.
Lyn: Alpha is defined by circular logic:
1: Hot chicks only go for alphas
2: He has hot chicks
3: He’s an alpha
Then the special pleading starts. Because MRA/PUA models aren’t really about women. The are about salving the egos of men who don’t get along well with women (many of whom don’t even like women, most of whom will end up not liking women because of the toxic swamp of violent misogyny that MRA sites all seem to be [though posters like anit insist there are some out there, I’ve not see them, and anit does’t want to share])
So, any modificatin of the definition which is needed to make this case (whatever case that happens to be) work, will be used.
Take me. I’m in my 40s. I’ve had more than the average number of sexual partners. None of them has ever tried to “trap me” into having a kid (though one did want a kid, and I wasn’t worldly enough [in the right ways] to realise that having a kid then wasn’t so out of her bounds that her not bringing up birth control didn’t mean she was using any, but didn’t care. We were lucky). I’m of decent looks (if you like slender men), but I’m not the sort most men are going to look at and say, “he gets lots of women.
I am, however, a feminist (i.e. I think everyone in society ought to be treated the same. I also happen to think the social structure is inherently disadvantageous for some of it’s members, and that needs to be addresssed). So I am getting all the action I get because I am “appeasing” women, and helping them in their campaign to “emasculate” men, and keep them down.
It’s a reward for collaborating. Which means I’m not really an alpha, I’m a traitor.
Or some such.
Comrade Svilova: But these are, “nice guys” whom any woman would want, except that they aren’t, “alpha”. So they get turned down. It’s not their fault that they aren’t what women want. It’s the fault of women not wanting them.
Women, you see, are all shallow, and men are all about the feelings, and deeper meaning of relationship (except for those damnable alphas, and their philandering ways… why if they weren’t so manly they’d practically be women, just in it for what they can get)
Plymouth: I don’t think Amnesia said the only reason people have more partners is rape. I think she said that people who don’t give a damn about others (and the article said, “psychopathic” and “narcissistic”) are more likely to fail to respect boundaries of consent. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that people who are possessed of higher rankings in such traits are more likely to “not readily take no for answer”.
It’s a reward for collaborating. Which means I’m not really an alpha, I’m a traitor.(Pecunium)
Well, when you put it that way I’ve gotta say, “youre brilliant.” 😉
I’m pretty sure the reason dark triad men have more sex partners is that women realize they’re dark triad and don’t want to date them in the long term, so they pretty much always have to be on the market.
Also, this dude fits in very well with the Theory of Assortative Mating. Psycho dude dates psycho women, and neither of them are particularly good at birth control, so there are a lot of kids.
Alsoalso, don’t rape kids.
@Plymouth
Yeah, I think I was trying to point out just one of many reasons why bad boy types might get more partners, but rereading my comment, it didn’t make that clear. My bad.
I don’t think ‘more partners’=’some must have been raped.’ It’s just that if we’re talking about men described as overly narcissistic, manipulative, and impulsive, well, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of their partner count wasn’t consensual.
Pecunium, if they changed it from girl to boy would they get why it is wrong?
On to Comet’s list:
Overfishing of cod in the North Sea
“Women need more fish for the babies because it is healthier. If they stopped having so many babies, the cod industry would not need to get so many cod.”
Bathtub hair cloggage
“Women shave their legs in the bath! If they were not so focused on looks, they would not have to shave their legs where it clogs the bathtub!”
Vuvuzelas
“If women did not like those macho footballers, the sport of football would never have taken off and no one would have needed to invent it.”
Bush fires in Australia
“if women did not want wool clothing to make themselves attractive…”
Difficulty of replacing duvet cover
“only women think duvet cover’s are a good idea.”
remove all logic and ta da! You can blame women for everything. Just like when you watch My Big Fat Greek Wedding and the father makes every word (even Japanese words) come from Greek.
titfortat: Is that the style of debate you were teaching your children before I came and you changed your methods?
Because, really dude, you could have so much better game.
You could have said it was because women like the idea of a slender man they can physically dominate.
Or that I am so blinded by the sex that I fail to see the clever machinations of their minds.
You could argue I ought to take advantage of the trust they’ve given me to start a fifth column.
But no, you just repeat the inanity of the MRA types, who would call me a traitor even if I wasn’t getting any; because I’m not trumpeting how evil the women are. If I was an iconic good looker, then I’d be a traitor for being an Alpha and hogging all the pretty girls (or for stooping to sleeping with Omegas, who don’t deserve any dick, because they won’t put out for the MRA types).
But really, calling me “brilliant” for treating women like people, and showing some respect for their interests and intellect… sorry, it’s not brilliant, just common sense.
But aren’t women who don’t shave their legs man-hating feminazis?
We can’t forget to add a double standard here, you know.
Which means I’m not really an alpha, I’m a traitor.
But from a certain point of view, a traitor can also be seen as a “bad Boy,” so MRA logic works. Kinda sorta.
I think women are supposed to vibrate the leg hair off or be born without it.
Yeah, I remember back in the day when I noticed that men tend to like women who are commonly called a sexist pejorative, but I’ll describe them here as aggressive, rude, pushy, and unpleasant. I’d cry, Why don’t men like nice girls who are easy to get along with?
And then I realized that, yes, some guys like a challenge, and some guys like being bossed around, but also, high-maintenance women tend to look high-maintenance (they blew dry their hair, for example, and wore make up), and perhaps more importantly, they were aggressive in approaching men and acting like they deserved to have a boyfriend, as opposed to shy-but-nice me, who always felt more comfortable being left alone.
So what do we learn here? I dunno. I eventually got a boyfriend without changing a whole lot about my stilo. But I also didn’t end up hating all men for being attracted to who they were attracted to, or hating all women who had more romantic or sexual success than me, or subscribing to a cultish worldview that uses Greek letters to excuse my failures as a person. That’s just me, though. MRAs can feel free to fail on their own terms, I suppose.
Titfortat, weren’t you gonna take your intellectually dishonest self and leave? Or was that only on the thread with the failed Robin Williams joke?
Pecunium
Youre fun man, Im not debating. I was just being observational.