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.
@Elizabeth:
“Okay-but that sounds awfully exploitative to me because she is trying to escape her terrible mother unless 14 year olds can work?”
Sorry, but I don’t quite understand your question?
@Slave: Rape is not sex, it’s violence. Whether a woman gets forced into sex, or violently abused, humiliated, stalked or something else, doesn’t matter in the end.
If you’re referring to a woman with that sandwich, and she’s really parading her “hoagies” in front of you, she may want it indeed. However, asking for her consent in such a situation will work wonders preventing a rape accusation.
@NWOslave
This, class, is called a faulty analogy.
Yeah, you wave food in front of starving people, they’re most likely going to take it from you. You know why? Because you need food to, you know, live.
You wave sex in front of “sex-starved” (bullshit) people and they’ll rape you? First we’d have to assume that rape is about sex, and then we’d have to assume that no one can control their sexuality. This might surprise you, but you will not die if you don’t have sex, which is why sex is not an uncontrollable impulse. If you can stop yourself in the middle sex when your parent walks into the room, you can sure as hell stop yourself from raping someone. It’s as simple as that.
Titfortat,
He didn’t do it for the same reasons feminists would have, I assure you.
Alex
Youre right, I wonder why they didnt?
Lydia-if she is able to work then she could presumably find some kind of residence on her own that she pays for which means she is making this choice of her own free will and not because she needs a place to stay badly enough that she has to let this guy have sex with her in exchange for the place to stay.
The power in that relationship is too lopsided otherwise.
@NWOSlave: You make all men sound like rabid animals who should be locked up, and I take that as a personal insult. Stop projecting your diseased fantasies onto everything with a Y-chromosome. Most of us can actually look at a woman being sexy without wanting to do her harm. What the hell is wrong with you?
@Elizabeth: Errr – I don’t quite know correctly about the laws for “child labour” (just gonna call it this way – you know what I mean), but I don’t think, with school and everything, she could have possibly made enough money for her own flat (we’ve got special residential groups with supervision for these cases anyway) but I think she really wanted to stay with that man. Also, I remember that the mother called the police once, but they too said they couldn’t do anything about this as this whole thing was consensual apparently.
So, again, parental/CPS failure. Not everyone knows Goethe in my country, although the rest of the world seems to believe this.
Sorry, I’m absolutely tired right now: Did you get my point? Moving in with that guy was a side effect of having a relationship with him, NOT the other way round. She did NOT pay him with sex.
Again: Did you get it? I’m not defending these people, just like I generally don’t defend anyone who doesn’t know Goethe. (I’m wording it this way because I don’t want to sound classist.)
I can see your point-I just cannot see how it is not exploitative considering the circumstances.
Going back like 100 posts because I was on a plane all day and am just getting to responding;
Pecunium said: “You could have said it was because women like the idea of a slender man they can physically dominate.”
The thing is, I think this is not all that far off from why I do like scrawny guys – I am intimidated by being with someone who is significantly stronger than me. I don’t mind boyfriends who are slightly stronger than me, but when they are more than a little stronger than me I just feel kinda inadequate all the time. So I don’t necessarily literally want to dominate them, but I do want to be at least close to equally matched. Wresting with boys is sexy fun time, but it’s no fun when they win too fast! 🙂
Although I am reading up on Goethe and I have no idea what on earth you mean Lydia.
NWOslave | May 17, 2011 at 8:27 pm
@Captain Bathrobe…One last comment, what the hell.
I got a delicious hoagie and I’m parading it around in front of starving people. I am showing it off. Aw man it smells so goooooood, just like perfume. When ya look at it it is goooorgeous, it’s just making your mouth water and I’m really grinding it in those poor sap starving peoples faces. But I “own” it baby and you can’t have it.
Do I deserve to get bonked on the head and have someone take it? Some will say no some will say yes. If I continually do this WILL someone bonk me or another innocent person who happens to have food on the head and take it. You betcha. But it’s not the saaaaame.
1. Comparing a woman’s own body (which she owns) to a sandwich (as described by a 3rd-rate porn writer), and men to some starving homeless people. CLASSY.
2. So, to you, a woman walking around in public and minding her own goddamn business while looking attractive is the exact same thing as you prancing around right in front of some homeless people and interacting with them — gloating to them that you have a sandwich, rubbing it in their faces that you have a sandwich and you know they’re hungry and it amuses you.I’m not even sure where to start. For one thing, the world doesn’t revolve around you; a hot woman being out in public has nothing to do with you at all. That you interpret her mere presence as her “parading” herself in front of you and slapping you in the face with the fact that she’d never, never, never go for you (and you did, of course, ask her about that, right? [Or do we also have some social anxiety- and self esteem-related issues to talk about?]) is disturbing. That you are so offended and enraged by just the thought of a pretty girl walking down the street speaks volumes, and none of it is positive. 3. If you were attacked, beaten, and robbed of your sandwich, IT WOULD STILL BE A CRIME. That you were being an asshole to those starving homeless people, and harassing them personally, would still not excuse them from attacking you. They would still be subject to the law, and the case itself would be so straightforward that it most likely wouldn’t even go to trial.CONCLUSION: You have some severe issues when it comes to people, women especially. Seek help from a licensed therapist soon.
Would it not be exploitative for you in other circumstances?
Of course, a relationship like this has always an abusive touch to it, but then again, so do teen pregnancies, where a teenage child has to care for a baby child (and the baby child is at her child mommy’s mercy).
Or when the police got those girl brides out from the – were they LDS people? – and some said it’s those people’s “religious freedom” to “live” and treat these girls the way their religion tells them to do.
What I’m trying to say: Of all consenting (or: “consenting”) exploitative relationships an underage girl (or boy) could find herself in, this constellation is certainly one of the least exploitative.
But again, yeah, you know it, parental/CPS failure. That’s some kind of child abuse, too.
Allow me, as a man, to join the facepalm train at NWOslave’s faulty analogy.
Because, FUCK!
Titfortat,
Feminists have totally run this country? Do we even have a single party leader who identifies as feminist? If we do, I think I missed that…
About that Goethe thing: Working class guidos. Their female counterparts are roaming all around this once gifted country. 40-year old women with snakeskin and their fake-tanned teenage daughters of several unknown fathers, I guess that girl belonged to them too. So that’s what I meant, but I was not trying to sound classist (or otherwise-ist) so hence my subtle Goethe reference.
I should have also pointed out, NWO, that your metaphor is both retarded and creeeepy. A woman — or a man — or a child — is not a sandwich, and reducing a person you are sexually attracted to to food is MESSED THE FUCK UP. And sexual assault is nothing like being bonked on the head and robbed of your goddamn lunch.
So, I think that sandwich analogy really breaks down if you consider strip clubs. At strip clubs women really ARE quite literally parading around naked and shaking their tits in men’s faces. And while there certainly are a few individuals who get the incorrect message that it’s OK to harass these women, the VAST VAST MAJORITY of men do not upon leaving the strip club go find a stripper to rape. If they did, strip clubs would fail as a business model because no one would be willing to work in them! Yes, strippers are absolutely using their sexuality to get money, I don’t think many people would deny that. But the fact that they do so does not turn men into sex-crazed rapists. Apparently just getting to watch a girl shake her tits in your face is in itself worth paying for for plenty of people.
And yet: These people are allowed to have children, and you wonder why a 14-year old girl coming from such a “family” may engage in an exploitative relationship.
Again, parental/ – …oh, nevermind. Really.
Alex
come on, you cant tell me if it wasnt important to most feminists that they couldnt have gotten Iggie or Jack on board to at least make a push. And where has Elizabeth been the whole time? Oops, enough with Canadian politics. 🙂
Apparently just getting to watch a girl shake her tits in your face is in itself worth paying for for plenty of people.(plymouth)
You do realize some of the clubs offered all you can eat buffets. At least they did that in Quebec when I was a teen.
“And where has Elizabeth been the whole time?”
Ummm, she was here…!?!
lydia
Are you american?
*lulz*
Totally. That’s why I keep mentioning GERMAN laws and GOETHE throughout this thread.
But hey, Germany has got an eagle too, so I guess we’re not that far apart, culturally.
?
So, whatever: http://www.google.de/search?q=bundesadler&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=de&tab=wi&biw=1920&bih=1114