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.
titfortat: If I misunderstood you, Mea Culpa. But it’s kind of hard to read that short a comment for deeper meaning, which leaves me with just the ways you’ve done things in the past.
I don’t agree with conservatives on many things, but I do agree with them on age of consent laws. American laws aren’t uniform, and they do allow for people close in age to have sex without it being called statutory rape. All states have their own rules; in some the partners can not have an age gap of more than three years, in others the older party can not be over the age of 21, while in some the older party can not be over the age of 18 if the age of consent is 16. I don’t know the specifics of all of the laws in all states and all other countries, but those are a few rules used in some states.
In the case of Donald Holmes, the girl was only 12 years old and he was 21 years old so he was clearly in the wrong. The laws are there to protect minors from older adults who wish to take advantage of their gullibility and lack of experience. This is not a gender issue, because it equally applies to adult women who wish to corrupt adolescent boys. It is a child safety issue instead.
I still think that MRAs should just fuck each other. It sure would solve numerous problems. They’d be free of evil womenz, AND they’d get some good loving and hopefully refuckinglax a bit? Perhaps they could all move into some kind of compound and have a circle jerk forever? hmm….
Doctress Julia, I like your idea of the MRA’s living together in a compound except it sounds a little scary, too. The last thing we need is for like extremists to live together in a compound, forming another militia.
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth, oops sorry about the Loch Ness thing. Of course Nessie is real! I’ve seen The Water Horse.
Rachel- I mean, obviously women do pay SOME taxes, and alphasshole men do too. But men are clearly the primary earners in the workforce (dollar by dollar), and thus pay the most taxes. This is another way the women exploit the betas and omegas, but that’s another topic. Thus, men pay the most taxes and are mostly supprting alphassholes like this guy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to extrapolate that omegas and beta men pay most of the taxes (as opposed to alphassholes), because we all know that women often get as much alpha cock as they can when younger, and when their looks/status fade they use a beta or omega as a husband/checkbook, who will accept them because they know they can not get anything better in their misdandrist society. The alpha men are thus free to continue dodging taxes and being single.
Here’s a (rough) breakdown of age of consent laws in the US.
There are 20 (i.e. 40 percent) states which have “bright line” divisions, and 30 which don’t. That is for, “open consent”. It doesn’t address exceptions for married (often allowed “with the consent of parents/guardian) or for the situation as it may relate to, “emancipated minors”.
No state has an open consent age of less that 16. I haven’t done the research to discover if there is a “grey area” for someone who is above the age of consent, but has a relationship with someone who isn’t (I recall hearing that Hawai’i’s wording was such that it might be possible to argue for a 17 year old having legal sex with someone who was only 15.
And… it appears they can.
§707-730 Sexual assault in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of sexual assault in the first degree if:
(a) The person knowingly subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by strong compulsion;
(b) The person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with another person who is less than fourteen years old; or
(c) The person knowingly engages in sexual penetration with a person who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old; provided that:
(i) The person is not less than five years older than the minor; and
(ii) The person is not legally married to the minor.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) shall not be construed to prohibit practitioners licensed under chapter 453, 455, or 460, from performing any act within their respective practices.
Prior to 2001, the age of open consent, in Hawai’i was 14. The legislature had to override a gubentorial veto to change it.
It doesn’t appear any jurisdiction in the US still has differential ages of consent.
Pecunium
Its hard to get true info about personalities on line because we lack so many physical cues. That is one reason why I rarely feel any actual dislike of the semi anonymous bloggers, regardless of what they write.
By the way, I do think most of those things you claim about myself and Ion you own too. Because of your extensive awareness in debating you just hide it better. Takes a scrapper to know a scrapper. 😉
Bush fires? Well, maybe if you’d wax your bushes they wouldn’t be on fire so much! (insert joke about burning pain here)
Vuvuzelas? Have you ever noticed that if you rearrange the letters it makes “u ez vulvas?” Uh huh. VAGINAL CONSPIRACY.
I got nothin’ else. I’m not interested in arguing about alphas or gammas or epsilons and whether they should be allowed to rape kids.
I never thought I’d say this, tit4tat, but you actually make a good point.
While I often have beef with the characters people play online, I acknowledge that the web presence is not the whole person.
I find your on-line persona to be execrable, but I don’t dismiss the possibility that you’re actually quite lovely in many areas of your life.
I don’t know what you mean by own.
If you mean I am using technique to make my points more easily/forcefully.
Yes, of course. That’s what rhetoric is all about. I am not above using cunning, and turn of phrase, and tone, and speaking past the target, and too the audience.
I’m not trying to pretend I don’t. What I’m not doing is using them instead of actual argument.
I’ll even cop to trying to, “win”, insofar as I am trying to persuade people that the arguments I make are both valid, and sound.
I’ve come to be in favor of making it legal for older teens to have sex with each other – I don’t see much wrong with a 16 year old having sex with a 20 year old. I was friends in high school with a guy who had to stop having sex with his girlfriend for six months, in between him turning 18 and her doing the same. I always thought that was utter silliness of Monty Python proportions, but he was afraid of what her parents might do if they found out (turns out that even before he turned 18, they would have been in trouble – apparently, in my state, it’s possible for teenagers to statutorily rape each other).
Power and sex are inextricably linked, and age is only one metric by which that power can be measured. I’m sure it’s possible for a wealthy, educated, experienced 20 year old to take sexual advantage of an uneducated and inexperienced 16 year old. In our culture, we say it’s wrong. This is also why it’s unethical for people in certain professions to get involved with clients, or even for bosses to get involved with direct underlings. We can’t say that it’s illegal for the educated and privileged to take advantage of those who are less so, but we can draw as many of those bright lines as possible, and hope that decent human beings get it.
Interestingly enough, it seems like the MRAs only like to whine about the age of consent laws. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any of them say that it’s so unfair that, as a psychiatrist, they’re not allowed to date any of their adult clients. Just that it’s so unfair that young teenagers are off limits. Maybe they know deep down their only chance is with the young and inexperienced?
It’s hard to keep some of these MRA arguments straight. One day they say that women as a group do not actually get paid less than men; the next day they assert that men pay more taxes than women. Which is it guys?
Thanks Simone, I do have my moments in real time. Though if I get a few pints in me sometimes the T4T does come out. 😉
I had an instructor in high school who would (it was a sociology class) hold forth with, “Hence’s Rules”. One of them (the only one which readily comes to mind as his, actually) was that teens ought not be involved with people more than two years apart in age.
His thesis was (and it seemed sensible to my 17 year old self) that the experiential gap between people wasn’t linear, but that it scaled tolerably well at that rate.
He also said that once you were 18 it was up to you what you did; since the law made you an adult. He further admitted it was a bit arbitrary, and that the acceptable gap would grow.
He asked us to think about the difference between 14 and 16, then 15 and 17. Then he asked what we, as 17-18 year olds, could manage to convince a 14 year old was acceptable.
How much harder would it be for a 21 year old to take advantage of us?
It’s not that I am, per se, opposed to age gap relationships. My grandfather was about 21 years older than my grandmother, and 40 years older than his next wife (my grandmother died of something [I’m guessing a cancer, and specifically I think it was breast cancer, but that was in the early ’60s), and they were happy until he died.
I had a long relationship (10 years) with a woman 12 years my junior, and the gap between myself and my fiancée is about a decade (she proposed to me, it never would have occurred to me, given the situation, that she would want to marry me).
But I was in my early thirties when the first of those started, and am in my middle forties now.
The relationships I had with older women in my 20s… didn’t go so well.
I actually feel like I’m more myself online than I am IRL. Might just be those social anxiety issues of mine, though.
Social Awkwardness: Not Just for Men Anymore!
@Pecunium – I find that the Standard Creepiness Range works pretty well at addressing the non-linear nature of the experience gap. The general rule is: don’t date anyone younger than half your age +7 (and, by extension, older than your age -7, x2). So, an 18 year old could date between the ages of 16 and 22, a 16 year old between the ages of 15 and 18, etc.
Doesn’t really work for anyone younger than 14, since 14/2 +7 = 14, but I try not to think too much about the personal lives of middle schoolers, because ew.
I simply can’t understand women/feminist aversion to older men marrying younger girls. Back in the “olden days” fathers would never let their daughters marry a young man. I know feminists will scream some pseudo pyschobabble about oppression and sexual ownership. Nothing like taking a fathers love and caring for his daughter and turn into oppression, but far be from me to rob women of their percieved historical victimhood.
There was a very good reason for older men marrying younger women. A man had to prove he wasn’t a cad, loser or rapist. He had to prove he was stable and reliable. Do you think the mothers didn’t have a hand in this as well? This “philosophy” worked out fantastic throughout history.
Look at the western world and the US today. 1.5 million abortions a year, 1/3 illegitimate birthrate overall 72% in the black population, (someone here gave me that percentage I think its 90%), well over 50% divorce rate, single parenthood IS the norm, STDs are as common as a cold, Bowls of free condoms in schools like holloween candy, (why teach them loyalty when you can throw handfuls of condoms at them and tell them to fuck, fuck, fuck, responsibly), slutwalking with pride, violent rape, rape culture in college I’m told. Hows all that lookin for ya?
When you look back in history every great empire or civilisation fell the same way. Rome, Greece, Egypt, Ming, ect. Every one was marred by the same affliction, sexual decadency. Once sexual morality decays society always fails. Those cultures took hundreds of years to fail, but with todays rapid communication and travel collapse will happen swiftly. So as you praise slutwalkers for their moxie you might want to brush up on your history. Unrestrained female sexuality will always lead to unrestrained male sexuality. And when that happens, you’ll know what a real rape culture is, and all the bruqa’s in the world won’t help then. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.
In which NWO continues to completely fail to understand power dynamics and world history.
NWOslave-do you ever remember anything that does not confirm your narrow little world view?
A man had to prove he wasn’t a cad, loser or rapist.
Unless, you know, he *was* a rapist and was marrying his victim. That was also part of the olden days, and there’s a reason we don’t do that anymore.
So, everyone, did you know that not only do we have accurate and comparable divorce, illegitimate birth, STD, and abortion rates from the middle ages? I sure didn’t.
Oops, though flow fail. Should read: So, everyone, did you know that not only do we have accurate and comparable divorce, illegitimate birth, STD, and abortion rates from the middle ages, but also exact motivations and outcome for arranged marriages? I sure didn’t.
NWO Slave, it is true that it used to be common for young girls to marry older men. They didn’t have to learn how to read, do basic math, or anything beyond how to raise children and help run a farm. The world we live in is much different. Imagine a 14 year old girl getting married now. She wouldn’t have any job skills, higher education, or life experience to prepare her to live on her own. If her husband beats her or cheats on her, she would have a hard time leaving. Since he’s a decade or more older, she’ll probably become a widow at a young age. What will she do then? The entire relationship is set up for the man’s benefit.
The olden days are not better than today. I am glad that I got to choose to marry after going to college and getting a job. In the olden days, I would have probably died in childbirth, too, if I was lucky enough not to die of a vaccine preventable disease in childhood.
The Roman Empire attained some of its greatest expansion under the Caesars–not exactly the poster boys for sexual restraint. Rome didn’t fall until nearly 400 years later. If “sexual decadency” caused the downfall of the Roman Empire, it certainly took its sweet time about it.
The Spartans came to dominate Greece, but also were partial to same sex relationships.
I don’t really know that there’s any real correlation between sexual decadency and either the rise or fall of empires. It seems more likely empires rise and fall for a variety of reasons. Sexual excess, historically, tends to happen among the ruling classes, where there is great wealth and power. In short, the emperors had orgies because they could–they had the resources to hire the prostitutes, buy the slaves, and feed the guests, not to mention impunity from legal reprisal or social opprobrium.
The difference nowadays is the democratization of sex–you don’t have to be an emperor to indulge in your own desires or fetishes; you just need a willing partner(s).
Of course, how the feminist ideal of responsible, birth-controlled sex with enthusiastic consent only contributes to the downfall of western civilization is not at all clear.
Unrestrained female sexuality will always lead to unrestrained male sexuality. And when that happens, you’ll know what a real rape culture is, and all the bruqa’s in the world won’t help then. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.
Ah yes, the idea that men are salivating dogs who can’t control themselves! What a dim view of men you have, NWO.