Oh dear. The Spearheaders are talking about the Slutwalks again. The discussion may be the worst on the subject that I have run across so far. Some of the lowlights:
Keyster seems downright pissed that women actually have the right to say no:
They’re high functioning children with sexual power and they don’t want you to forget it. They’re outraged that just because a young woman dresses and acts in a sexually provocative manner, that she might receive unwanted attention from young men that don’t appeal to her.
She should be able to dress like a street whore and abuse alcohol to the point of delerium and they feel compelled to lecture us on how that doesn’t mean this is an advertisment to be sexually harrassed, sexually assaulted or heaven forbid raped. …
They want the “RIGHT” to dress as sexually provocative as they want to without being constantly annoyed by lowly beta males. They’d prefer you not “sexually victimize” them, unless you’re hot and they’re into you, then it’s totally OK. …
Remember this: She didn’t bother to get dressed up for the likes of YOU. Her hope was a worthy athelete or Hollywood star might notice her and talk to her; not some weak, pathetic loser …
“We’ve got the sexual power, the power of consent, the gate keeper of the holy vaginal crevice. See our bouncing propped up cleavage, our long legs and glorious ass protruding from those heels? You want it don’t you?
….ha, ha, ha…you can’t have it because I SAY SO! Because I have THIS power over you, lowly little man. Bow down to me and beg me a little, I might even let the others see me talking to you, without calling the cops.” …
This isn’t feminism, it’s flaunting female sexual power in the faces of men.
You’re seriously complaining that woman have the “power of consent!?” EVERYONE has the power of consent. No one male or female is obliged to have sex with anyone they don’t want to. That’s, you know, rape. It bothers you that women are the “the gate keeper[s] of the holy vaginal crevice?” Who the fuck else should be the gatekeeper of a person’s vagina other than the person whose vagina it is? The mind reels. But apparently the 50+ upvoters of this piece of abhorrent nonsense aren’t bothered by any of this.
Demirogue, meanwhile, suggests we need to better discipline our women:
While perusing FB last week I came across the newest deviation of this mentality which is going topless. … And they want to cry about rape? They need to cry but only because people said enough is enough and started to belt them on their asses.
Women need to be controlled and on a very, very short leash. They’ve been given every right, every option, every opportunity to be something and what do they do with it? Abuse and manipulate it with reckless abandonment and incessant demands.
Geography Bee Finalist himself thinks the slutwalkers must be retarded:
I wouldn’t worry too much about these Slutwalk sows.
They have no redeeming features. None.
They cannot figure out that if you dress like a whore, you deserve to be treated in a disrespectful manner. Even conservatively dressed mentally retarded women can figure this out and conduct themselves with more propriety and intelligence than these Slutwalkers … .
Knuckledragger blames it on those damned suffragettes:
…we let ‘em drive, we let ‘em vote, and this is what we get.
Ridiculous to even offer attention to another excuse to dress like a whore, goof off in public, and not bring me a beer.
Any man worth his salt should fire any skank who was “sick” from work to attend this nonsense.
SingleDad seems to think that all accusations of rape are made up:
Rape is now the extra tax women charge men if some how their unsatisfied with whatever arrangement was made before or after any encounter in or outside of marriage.
Other lowlights:
Poiuyt agreeing with Anders Breivik’s “observations surrounding this femaleist pandemic,” while adding that he “is to be rebuked for taking the wrong cureative actions to solve it.”
Demirogue (in a second comment) complaining that “overvalued pussy is all [women today] have to offer and only to certain men.”
Anonymous age 69 explaining that “rape laws were intended to protect women of good character, from being sexually violated,” not “to protect promiscuous sluts .”
And more, much, much more. Many of the worst (including most of those quoted here) have many dozens of upvotes. Go read the thread yourself, if you think you can stomach it.
There are no arguments to rebut here; I can only repeat the basic message that the slutwalks are trying to convey: no one deserves to be raped, no matter what they are wearing or how much consensual sex they engage in. Even if they show some cleavage or prefer athletes and/or rocks stars to so-called beta males.
CB: About a year later she was at an amusement park with friends. The one who had driven sprained her ankle. My GF was the only other person who had any idea of how to drive stick.
Yeah… I think it’s an essential life skill.
I thought the bon-bon meme’s closest originator was Peggy from Married… with Children. Who herself probably took it from someplace else, but I have no idea where.
David, I need more information than a supposed Penthouse interview to form conclusions. Do you have something more than questionable print on the pages of adolescent wank-fodder or are you going to just keep pointing to it as though it were scripture? It seems you’re just desperate and chomping at the bits to sully anyone who questions feminism, no matter how elusive, opaque, or biased your sources may be.
Please, cross-reference your sources so we don’t have to keep going on with this back-and-forth bullshit. Or just bow out. I can’t really make you substantiate your claims, you can always run off and declare Internet victory or something.
My next to last comment should read “I fell in the shower during my honeymoon.” Not that I didn’t do that other thing, too… 🙂
After reading the discussion between David and various MRAs about what Warren Farrell (and Andrea Dworkin) said about incest and pedophilia, people need to remember that the attitude towards these things was totally different at that time. Warren Farrell didn’t say what he said because he would became later an MRA and Andrea Dworkin didn’t say what she said because she was a radical feminist. They both said it because they were living in the 1970s and the 1970s were, sexually, the anything goes decade.
As an example, Daniel Cohn-Bendit was one of the student leaders during the event in May 1968 in Paris. Later, he was involved with several Left-Wings radicals during the seventies and now he’s part of a European Left-Wing party. In 1975 he was working in a school in Germany and he wrote a book saying that he had sex with children. Nobody cared about it and the book was forgotten and around 2000, someone rediscovered it and Daniel Cohn-Bendit had to explain himself to the media.
One of the most famous female erotic writer of the 1970s was Xaviera Hollander. In 1971 she was the most famous high-class prostitute of New-York and she wrote a book called “The Happy Hooker” about her life that became an international best-seller. In the original edition she talks about all the orgies that she took part and said that she had sex with a dog. After she wrote several other books that all became international best-sellers. In another book she said while in the Europe, she had sex with a guy in front of his 8 years old son and the little boy touched her. When she came in Montreal in 1974, she was interviewed on TV and defended incest.
Maybe both Warren Farrell and Andrea Dworkin read together the books of Xaviera Hollander. 🙂
Well-sourced and substantiated claims are very important to FactFinder, because they send feminists running to do lots of research that MRAs can then dismiss with a single word and then go back to making their own ass-pulled claims.
What pervocracy is trying to say is that 70s Penthouse is a well-sourced and substantiated claim and anyone who says otherwise is dismissive.
Sorry, Penthouse is not a well-sourced claim. Now sit down and shut up so you don’t embarrass yourself again. Good girl.
Factfinder, If someone wanted to defend incest in the1970s, the best place to do it was in Penthouse magazine.
Now sit down and shut up so you don’t embarrass yourself again. Good girl.
factfinder it is really precious when you try to be domineering, in like a a puppy trapped under a blanket type of way
whos a big tough man on the internet?! factfinder is ooooh yes he is!
Penthouse is a perfectly acceptable source if you’re trying to substantiate a claim that an interview was given to Penthouse, actually.
FF, your fulminations aside, Farrell did indeed give an interview about incest to Penthouse magazine. I pointed you to scanned copies of this interview. You don’t need to “source” that; it’s a primary document. If you want to pretend the interview never happened, I suppose that’s your business, but it makes you look like an idiot.
Not that we need any more proof of that; that “sit down and shut up” routine kind of proves that all by itself.
NMMNG, I’m willing to cut people a certain degree of slack for the “it was the 70s” factor, though the stuff he said was still a bit creepy. And of course people change their minds about things. But Farrell, as that interview that FF posted shows pretty clearly, has not been forthright about any of this. I think his dishonest handling of this issue makes it hard for me to trust anything he says about anything.
You’ll “form conclusions” based on the carefully screened facts that make it into the Politburo between your ears and not a scrap of information more and we all know it.
There was substantial overlap between “respectable news source” and “wank fodder” back in the day, you deluded lickshite. In its heyday Playboy was famous for its interviews, “extensive (usually several thousand-word) discussion[s]” with notable figures. (I’m getting all of this from Wikipedia which is hardly difficult to locate, as far as facts go.)Alex Haley, for example, served as a Playboy interviewer on a few occasions; one of his interviews was with Martin Luther King Jr. and he also interviewed Malcolm X for Playboy before coauthoring his autobiography, on which you are cordially invited to blow me.
The fiction Playboy published included works by Saul Bellow, Sean O’Faolain, John Updike, James Dickey, John Cheever, Doris Lessing, Joyce Carol Oates, Vladimir Nabokov, Michael Crichton, John LeCarre, Irwin Shaw, Jean Shepherd, Arthur Koestler, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Bernard Malamud, John Irving, Anne Sexton, Nadine Gordimer, Kurt Vonnegut and J. P. Donleavy, as well as poetry by Yevgeny Yevtushenko. This last poet, you cockmongling waste of grey matter, was one of the best known poets of the 1950s and 1960s in the Soviet Union, although Akhmatova hated his work and his role as a dissident was questioned by hardcore anti-Soviet writers, although considering that your level of exposure to things that don’t support your pathetic beliefs appears to be roughly that of a veal calf’s, I don’t expect you to know the difference.
Unlike Playboy, Penthouse carried out its interviews primarily with celebrities; yet while they do not match the larger cultural relevance of Playboy’s offerings, they’re still solid pieces of journalism (this looks well-sourced to me, you waste of space: http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien240.html)and HERE’s THE SHOCKER, still quoted as evidence of things their subjects actually said. Asshole.
So you are not able to find a second source where Farrell makes those claims, then? I mean, he was working on a book on incest. This would be big news. You can at least find something other than a celebrity magazine for a purported sociological view, can’t you?
You have my permission to admit defeat. No, I will not “blow you” in exchange. I’m not sure where corrective homosexual face rape entered into this dialogue, but keeping in the spirit of feminist discourse I would advise you to kindly go fuck yourself instead. Have a glorious day.
Just wanted to say to Raoul (I know this was ages ago), that David’s bringing up successful men was in direct response to one of the quotes. The relevant section reads:
“They want the “RIGHT” to dress as sexually provocative as they want to without being constantly annoyed by lowly beta males. They’d prefer you not “sexually victimize” them, unless you’re hot and they’re into you, then it’s totally OK. …
Remember this: She didn’t bother to get dressed up for the likes of YOU. Her hope was a worthy athelete or Hollywood star might notice her and talk to her; not some weak, pathetic loser …”
This is why David brought up the fact that, yes, women might want to have sex with someone who isn’t a so-called beta male…this isn’t an attack on anyone, it’s their right (to want to, not their right to actually have sex with whoever they want without consent).
You don’t need a second source to substantiate the claim that farrell said those things once, is the thing.
I have no doubt that he has since changed his mind of it, but that’s not what you’re trying to say.
Err, where does he confirm it? And where have we established that he said those things? Journalists lie and embellish all of the time. I just need more than a single article to confirm a shocking and out-of-character claim. I mean, have you read any of his books? Even his earlier work is nothing of that sort. It’s like reading on one blog that Obama killed a homeless man. If I read he was rude and unlikeable to the writer, that would be somewhat believable, but the more outrageous and unworldly the claim the more evidence is needed to substantiate it.
No, actually, that an interview happened with a magazine, and that the things that were said were said, is in fact not the same as a blog writing that the president has killed a man just to watch him die.
Not even Farrell opposes that the interview happened. He does not deny any of the things he said, except that he didn’t say “Genitally carress”, instead saying “Gently carress”. I could buy that. But if he isn’t saying the interview was entirely made up, and has no other problems with it, it’s entirely probable that this interview happened, and happened as was presented. You’re playing a solipsist game wherein you insist that even the dude who admits that the interview happened didn’t because… why?
Hey, Factfinder! I need some advice! I am a single lady right now, and I would really like to be a partnered lady. How would you suggest I go about finding myself a main squeeze?
Did he bother to ask for a retraction? No? Why not?
You don’t need a second source to substantiate the claim that farrell said those things once, is the thing.
But he did say them more than once! They happen to be all over his published writings, in locations that are easily found by most people who haven’t bludgeoned themselves into imbecility with the repeated consumption of propaganda, when you Google “warren farrell incest.”
So you are not able to find a second source where Farrell makes those claims, then? I mean, he was working on a book on incest. This would be big news.
While that book remains unpublished, friend irrumator, God only knows why you missed this shit.
A quote from The Myth of Male Power is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jWj5OBvTh1IC&pg=PA37&dq=warren+farrell+incest&hl=en&ei=YgxCTtnxGMzRiALv2c2XBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=warren%20farrell%20incest&f=false
And here’s some things he has to say about date rape, also from The Myth of Male Power
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?11,95569,95569
Which itself is easily available not only for purchase, but also on torrent sites, if you’re into that. We can read along!
Meanwhile, if the Penthouse article contained things like this,
“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”
then no fucking wonder you’d rather sweep it under the rug than deal with it. Have a splendid afternoon.
edit:
*SINCE the Penthouse article contained things like this.
Err, where does he confirm it? And where have we established that he said those things? Journalists lie and embellish all of the time. I just need more than a single article to confirm a shocking and out-of-character claim. I mean, have you read any of his books? Even his earlier work is nothing of that sort.
Out of character? He said date rape was “just called exciting” back in the day, and that incest is problematic because it gives the child power over the parent.
“So you are not able to find a second source where Farrell makes those claims, then? I mean, he was working on a book on incest. This would be big news.”
I spent 45 seconds googling and found this LA Times article from 1993. In pertinent part:
“But Farrell says Friedan has been unhappy with him ever since he told her about his plans to write a book on incest that would include stories of ‘those who had positive (incest) experiences.’ “
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448
You are welcome to do a search using the “look inside” feature. I read the original 1993 version and it did not condone incest. I’ll look again when I’m back at the library and perhaps even post a scan of my own.