Categories
MRA reddit violence against men/women

MRAs cheer on the Seal Beach shooter: “Women are much more likely to pay attention when they’re being threatened.”

The suspect in custody

On Wednesday afternoon, according to reports, a man named Scott Dekraai walked into a salon in Seal Beach California and opened fire, killing eight people, including his ex-wife Michelle Fournier, his evident target.  The two, who shared custody of their son, had been entangled in an acrimonious custody dispute. (Dekraai wanted to reduce his ex’s access.) Fournier had told friends she feared her ex would try to kill her.

It’s not, unfortunately, uncommon for angry or jealous exes to harass, stalk and in many cases actually kill the objects of their obsession.  Usually the killer is a man, and the victim a woman, but women kill too, and same sex couples are hardly immune from this kind of violence.

I’ve been following this story – it’s a heartbreaking one — though I hadn’t planned to write about it. There’s no indication, at least based on what we know so far, that Dekraai’s shootings were ideologically driven, that he was anything other than a deeply troubled man, bitterly angry that he had to share custody of his son with a woman he hated. There seemed to be no clear connections between this story and the misogynist ideologues I write about on this site.

But then they started making the connections themselves, offering apologias for Dekraai’s violence and twisting the facts of the case to fit their ideological agendas. TRIGGER WARNING: Many of the comments I quote below are some of the most vile and vicious I have ever found in more than a year of writing this blog.

On In Mala Fide, Ferdinand Bardamu didn’t let the facts get in the way of his perverse ideological spin on the case, titling his post on the subject “Anti-Male, Anti-Father Divorce Laws Drive Man to Commit Heinous Rage Shooting Against Ex-Wife” and blaming feminism for “poisoning the relationship between men and women” in America.

Bardamu’s argument, such as it is, is utterly at odds with the basic facts of the case. Dekraai and Fournier had shared custody of the boy they’d had together; Dekraai was not fighting to see his child — he was trying to further limit his ex’s access.

As a local Fox News affiliate noted:

Dekraai’s former attorney, Don Eisenberg, told CNS that the two had a “typical” divorce, which was finalized on Dec. 28, 2007.

“This was not a remarkable case. It was a stipulated judgment and the parties agreed on these details,” Eisenberg said.

Under the shared custody agreement, Dekraai had the boy each week from Thursday through the weekend, and the mother had him Monday through Wednesday, the attorney said.

“It was almost an exactly equal split,” Eisenberg said.

There’s not much beyond the headline to Bardamu’s post; the real action is in the comments — many of which openly advocate violence and explicitly endorse Dekraai’s murderous rampage.

One anonymous visitor left this chilling comment:

[E]nough of this type of offensive action might just start making women and their supporters* think twice, especially if they also become targets. (* Divorce attorneys, child services workers and counselors, family court judges, and other enabling cogs in the feminist legal system)

Self-immolating Thomas Ball may have made a point, but the fact remains that he didn’t strike a blow, even as he advocated it.

Someone calling himself Remorhaz expresses a similar sentiment:

The only way this or any offensive action will make a difference is if it starts affecting the judges and lawyers. King John did not sign the magna carta because he was a kindly just ruler, he did it with a sword on the back of his neck while watching a grinning man holding an axe who was busy trying on black hoods. In Mexico entire police forces quit because a few officers go missing. If that started happening then the law becomes meaningless as there is no one to enforce it. …

Essentially men need to tell feminism to shut the fuck up, give it a vigorous slap across the face thus reminding it who is the biological superior, then order it back into the kitchen/bedroom.

In a followup comment he railed against those who expressed disapproval of the shootings:

What options other than overt acts of physical violence are there for a man to deal with a shrew ex and corrupt family court system? To those who are horrified and surprised at this one question…. why? Isn’t the real question – “How come this isn’t a lot MORE common?”. And please avoid the “Well… nothing justifies killing blah blah blah” as we’ve all voted, supported, and tolerated governments who kill over parking tickets much less loss of children. And if keeping your children isn’t worthy of killing what is exactly?

Raymond, meanwhile, directed his opprobrium at Dekraai’s ex-wife:

Hopefully one of the dead carcess was his wife. The son will be better off without any parents than to have been raised by a single mother who would have gotten her vindictive way. And to Scott, when you mess with a real man’s child, blood will be spilt. Most men will just lay down and be resigned to the state-enforced kidnapping and extortion plot, but some are made of tougher stuff and for you to whine about this dead ex-wife or that is inconsequential and no loss to humanity.

Presumably he will be pleased to learn that she was one of those killed.

Frank saw the dead as “collateral damage” in a just war; his only complaint was that Dakraai hadn’t gone after public officials.

This man went to war. He caused much collateral damage and casualties have piled. And the people whose first reaction is to cry “those poor, innocent people” are people who will never change anything. Death is the way of the world. Violence or the implicit threat of it is what causes change. Go ahead, make it clear that you don’t have it in you to destroy life. The enemy will breath a little easier, because you certainly aren’t going to make any changes.

That said, he should have gone after judges and legislators. There’s no justice like a dead “justice”.

Tweell hoped the shootings would frighten women out of challenging their husbands or ex-husbands in court:

Gandi [sic] and MLK got what they were after via non-violent means, but they were dealing with people of conscience, people who would think about the issues they espoused and not just kill them. Non-violence only works when your opponent has moral character. …

I submit that women …  are much more likely to pay attention when they’re being threatened. If it becomes obvious that claiming child abuse during divorce, withholding visitation and other such actions could result in their death, then they might think twice about such behavior.

Meanwhile, on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, more moderate MRAs weighed in on the case. While no one explicitly defended the shooter’s actions, numerous posters said they understood the violence, and (completely ignoring the basic facts of the case) blamed it not on Dekraai but on a court system biased against men.

A poster calling himself TheRealPariah embraced Dekraai:

He is one of us. You cannot throw men struggling out simply because they do something you disagree with.

Bobsutan predicted (and came very close to endorsing) more violence,

violent outburst[s] like this will continue to happen so long as ‘kidnapping by court’ and ‘sold into slavery by court’ (via CS & alimony) keeps happening. … fix the family court system and these murders wouldn’t happen.

Moderator AnnArchist – we’ve met him before – agreed, arguing that

To prevent this in the future the solution is clear: Mandate 50/50 custody without any child support as the default

Another r/mr regular, carchamp1, took it a bit further:

I don’t condone what he did. No sane person would. But, I understand it. …  You steal someone’s kids with the help of our so-called “family” courts you’re a pig. You have it coming. Period.

I think it’s high time we put a spotlight on these kidnappers. They are NOT innocent people. They are the scum of the earth. I couldn’t care less about their “welfare”. I care about the millions of parents, mostly fathers, who’ve had their kids stolen from them AND their kids.

When I pointed out in the discussion there that Dekraai had hardly been denied access to his child,  AnnArchist changed the subject, suggesting that it was Fournier’s accusations against Dekraai in court that had pushed him over the edge. In fact, both had made numerous allegations about one another in court; Dekraai accused his ex-wife of phone harassment; she complained that he was abusive, mentally unstable and had threatened to kill her. Obviously she was right to have worried.

But according to AnnArchist, Fournier was wrong to bring up his instability in court. As he put it: “Poking the bear is dangerous.”

When I pressed him on this, he responded:

If you really think someone is nuts, you probably don’t want to be the one to call them out in open court because if they don’t go to prison they might kill you. Its tough to do with kids involved, but if she thought he was capable of something like this, using it in a custody dispute would be considered by many to be risky.

Astonished, I asked him if he was really saying what it looked like he was saying, that if you think your ex is dangerous, and literally insane, you shouldn’t challenge them in court when they try to get sole custody of your kid? His reply:

I didn’t know what to say to this bizarre argument, so I stopped responding.

I don’t know what to say to any of this. It is beyond appalling.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

415 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mythago
9 years ago

Somehow, I get the feeling that if a divorced father posted that he was afraid to share custody with his unstable ex-wife, that the MRAs would be telling him “oh well, you don’t want to poke the bear, just lobby for California to pass concealed-carry laws and hire a bodyguard or something.”

mythago
9 years ago

Would NOT be telling him, rather. Sheez.

Cat of Many Faces
Cat of Many Faces
9 years ago

Seriously sick.

i bet they were typing with only one hand as well…

Polliwog
Polliwog
9 years ago

Jesus. Even for MRAs, “you should threaten to kill your wife so she won’t say that you’re abusive” is insane.

filetofswedishfish
9 years ago

Yep. A totally levelheaded non hate group right here, nothing unusual, angry, repulsive, wrong, violent or hateful to see here, move along.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

It just shows that MRas will totally ignore facts in favor of their hatred.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

We should place bets on the coming troll response xD

off the top of my head, candidates are:

“He’s not an MRA”

“Murder is wrong, but this is what happens when you trample men.”

“Feminists murder people too!”

“Valerie Solanas!”

“All of the MRAs supporting this are outliers.”

“If this was a woman killing her ex-husband, feminists would be cheering!”

“I’ll decry the MRAs you quoted when you decry Amanda Marcotte!”

Am I missing anything?

We should bet on these like horses xD Whatever ones show up the most the bettors win 😀

filetofswedishfish
9 years ago

“STATE MANDATED VIOLENCE BIG DADDY POLICE STATE11!!!”

mythago
9 years ago

Oh Ami, how can you pick just one?

Tabby Lavalamp
9 years ago

At this point, when these tragedies happen the question isn’t “Will MRAs say something disgusting?” but “Who will be the first MRA to say something disgusting?”

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Ami – I’m going to say all of the above, along with a good measure of people saying “MRAs don’t support murder” but then becoming curiously circumspect when asked how they, personally, feel about murder. An MRA talking about murder always sounds like a politician talking about gay marriage–they never want to go so far as to give a clear opinion on this controversial matter.

Ugh. This just falls into the ever-widening category of “nothing surprises me anymore.” David could find a site full of men advocating for baby girls to be set on fire, and I’d sort of frown and shrug. (And wonder if we’d seen it before.) These guys don’t have limits.

I like to tell myself that’s just because they don’t take life seriously, because they have no context for thinking of murder as a real thing happening to real people. It’s just an idea to use in their game, something to have fun playing with, as theoretical as talking about if Luke was justified in blowing up the Death Star.

That’s what I like to think.

NullPointer
NullPointer
9 years ago

“If only his ex-wife hadn’t provoked him with her nagging shrew literacy, they could still be happily married”

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Oh, and since I’ve decided to start check MRAs for Nazi tendencies after the fun in that last thread:

You’ll be pleased to hear that Ferdinand Bardamu is not a white nationalist. You will not be pleased to hear why not. (from: http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2010/06/28/whats-wrong-with-white-nationalism/)

B: I see. And just who are the enemies of the white race?

WN: The Jews! They control the government, the media, and Wall Street, and they’re trying to ethnically cleanse us from our own nation by robbing us, importing foreigners to replace us, and encouraging miscegenation with lesser races. And the Negroes! They’re slaughtering us in the streets and raping our women!

FB: Okay, Jews and Negroes are bad. But weren’t white people responsible for letting the Jews in this country and allowing them to participate in public life to begin with?

WN: Uhhhh…

FB: And the Negroes – weren’t they brought here from Africa as slaves and later emancipated by white people?

WN: Errrrr…

FB: Wouldn’t this mean that these problems that white people suffer from are basically self-inflicted?

So you see. Totally not a Nazi. He’s a completely different kind of anti-Semitic racist.

Orion
Orion
9 years ago

Wow, that’s horrifiyng. I just can’t even parse most of it.

My brain keeps trying to escape the horror by going back to the Magna Carta image. So, someone is standing behing King John with a sword at his throat… but he won’t feel sufficiently threatened unless there’s ALSO an executioner sharpening an axe in FRONT of him? Is he worried that they’ll behead him twice?

Eneya
9 years ago

When I hear about stuff like that I wander… these people actually argue that men ARE insane, dangerous, uncontrollable creatures who should be avoided and yet feminists are called manhaters?
Wtah the fuck?

This story is horrible and I find no excuse, even if the perptrator was a woman, a man or a marcian. Simply not acceptible and not right, I can’t understand people who think that mass murder is somehow justified.

blitzgal
9 years ago

Very sad and small people. And they wonder why they are termed “creepy” in the real world. Here’s a hint: it’s because you’re FUCKING CREEPY!

Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte)

It’s interesting how it never occurs to them that a child might belong to her mother as much as her father. They basically see mothers as incubators for “their” children.

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

as theoretical as talking about if Luke was justified in blowing up the Death Star.

In the first movie I’d say “yes” since it was already used as a weapon of terror against Alderaan and theoretically populated by Imperial troops. (Still, you have to wonder if there were civilian contractors on it…)

Oh, sorry… we’re talking about the armchair sociopaths on MRA sites.
Yeah, Pulling shit out of their asses, not that they support it, but they TOTALLY understand killing women.
Goat-blowers.

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
9 years ago

@Holly Pervocracy: This is textbook Identitaire ideology (from the French ‘respectable’ far right revolutionaries). Is the author a Frenchman or Quebecois (he mentions Quebec separatism a lot) or is he an American, or some other non-French European?

Because I thought the Identitaire ideas had remained mostly segregated within the francophone far right, and I would be surprised if they’re starting to take roots in the USA.

comrade svilova
comrade svilova
9 years ago

The father had MORE than 50% custody. How would mandating 50/50 custody have helped?

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

How do you even find the words to criticize people so completely out of touch that basic reason and decency appears to be beyond them? Not only do they “understand” (read: condone) mass murder, they ignore the fact that the child in question is now effectively an orphan.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Eenya: No… Men are peaceful, and loving. It’s just that women are so hateful; and have so much power, that men are forced to kill them.

It’s self defense. If women understood that they should be fuzzy, and loving and simper adoringly at their men, while making sure there was never anything for which he might want; while they stayed in appropriately feminine clothing and read Man Approved books, then there would be no need for men to defend themselves by killing them (and whoever happens to be nearby).

But women have been poisoned by Feminism into thinking that men are violent (when in reality they are loving, and have only become violent since feminism starting to fill their minds with hate instead of love and and submission.

It’s feminism’s fault for, what little, abuse and rape happen. If the women would just shut up and make sandwiches; as nature, and Nature’s God, intended the world would never hear of such things, because there would be no need for men to defend themselves with mass murder.

Amphitrite
Amphitrite
9 years ago

I’ve seen this up close and personally. When I divorced my ex-spouse, I had lawyers, court ordered psychiatrists who were interviewing all of us, and family members warn me to make the situation look as “positive” as possible. They outright said they feared that me revealing some of his worst behavior in a public forum would push him over the edge. That a man who doesn’t feel like any normal rules apply to him, would disregard any kind of legal strictures.

Some even hinted that my own ability to mother my kids would be in question if I “looked like a victim.” This was after all of them testified in court they believed he would make continual attempts on our physical safety, that he believed he was justified in his behavior, and that he had been violently physically abusive in front of outside witnesses.

It’s way more common than I think even I imagine.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Dracula: they ignore the fact that the child in question is now effectively an orphan.

At least one of them thinks that improves things.

If pressed, I’ll wager that same person will say the kid should be proud of the father for standing up and being counted; for doing what had to be done. The child should think of the father as a hero.

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

Ugh. I hate that I’m getting less and less surprised by this kind of shit.

mythago
9 years ago

It’s interesting how it never occurs to them that a child might belong to her mother as much as her father.

But see, the *mother* belongs to the father, too. How can she possibly have rights without his permission? That’s like saying you’re not allowed to take a chew toy away from your dog because it’s the dog’s property. Madness!

@Pecuniam: Exactly. It’s the precise mentality of an abuser; I hit you because you make me do it, and if only you behaved/thought/looked/acted correctly, I wouldn’t have to do it to you.

Joanna
9 years ago

There you have it folks. If you can’t get your way, shoot everyone. Problem solved!

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Jeez. Just… jeez. I’m particularly smitten by the idea that men all all some kind of terrorist bears, and women should just roll over, play dead, and immediately cave to their demands no matter what or men will flip out and start mauling everyone. Maybe I’m hanging out with the wrong kind of men? The men I know would never fucking do anything like this. Because men are fucking human beings capable of love and rational thought.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

There you have it folks. If you can’t get your way, shoot everyone. Problem solved!

It’s also obvious from his actions that the problem wasn’t “I don’t get enough time with my kid” (because shooting people doesn’t solve that problem) but was instead “my ex gets too much time with my kid” (which murdering her did technically solve.)

It’s a beautiful microcosm of MRM thought: they aren’t trying to improve things for men, they’re simply trying to make things worse for women at literally all costs. It’s a Pyrrhic “victory” (really more of a lose-lose) but they’ll celebrate the fuck out of it anyways.

Polliwog
Polliwog
9 years ago

There’s a part of me that really wishes some of these nitwits would actually be witness to a shooting of this sort, just so that they’d have to stop glamorizing it into some brave, video-game hero boldly attacking monstrous women and see the actual awfulness of what they’re endorsing. I don’t doubt for a second that pretty much all of them, had they been there, would have been hiding behind the nearest object crying and shitting themselves, rather than saying, “Hey, it’s okay, I’m just collateral damage! I’m proud to go out knowing that at least some women are dying with me!”

Of course, the giant downside of this plan is that it requires a shooting, and I don’t support anyone (even these assholes) getting shot. We’d need some sort of anti-MRA equivalent of the one-armed guy from Arrested Development. “And THAT’S why you never make idiot comments about how murdering people is justified!”

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

It’s also obvious from his actions that the problem wasn’t “I don’t get enough time with my kid” (because shooting people doesn’t solve that problem) but was instead “my ex gets too much time with my kid”

Actually, from some of the news stories, I think it was actually, “My ex gets some input on decisions that affect my child, and that makes me mad.” But whatever. Murdering her was still obviously the solution to his problem.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Bagelsan: It’s not any sort of victory. What they are trying to do is paint it as part of an upswell of sentiment. They dare not openly endorse (well, one would think so; but the comments belie that) open warfare, but they want people to think there will be “blood in the streets” if they don’t get their way.

Most of them are too chickenshit to do what they advocate (a terroristic campaign against the state, in the person of judges and prosecutors) because they know it will lead to nothing more than a life in prison (short, or long; depending on the jurisdiction). But they dream. They imagine a world where most men agree with them. Then, in this glorious nightmare on Elm Street they see men, in their thousands, rising up (a “day of the rope”) and killing all these gender-traitors.

After that, when the feminists see how much they “mean it” they will go back to their proper places, barefoot (so they can’t run away), pregnant (so there are children to keep them from running away), in the kitchen (so they can keep the men happy, and avoid the beatings that make them want to run away), and dependent, so that (should they run away), they will starve without a man to “provide for them”.

That is the paradise they resent not living in. It’s the fantasy of NWO, and the dream-state of Meller. It’s what, when all is said and done (thank god so much more is said than done) they want the laws to mandate.

And without it, they get their knickers in a twist, and complain that the law is any semblance of balanced in regards to women’s rights. Feminists are evil and Manginas are worse; because so long as there are men who say that women are their equals, the days of glory cannot come to pass.

Because if they really try that shit, I’ll shoot them where they stand.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Bee: Actually, from some of the news stories, I think it was actually, “My ex gets some input on decisions that affect my child, and that makes me mad.”

Yeah. It seems the breaking point was that he wasn’t given absolute veto over everything that might affect the child.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

ugh..

This is a prime example of why you shape your opinion around evidence, not fit the evidence to your preconceived notions. It would have been completely trivial for these guys to just say “all right… most guys don’t get a fair shake in divorce hearings. This one was, and he still went over the line. He’s just some nut job.” They wouldn’t even have to sacrifice any of their ideology for it.

But no… Whenever a guy commits mass murder, and a woman was even remotely involved in any way, the guy was driven/forced/had no other choice… It’s really sickening.

There was an uproar a while back over whether violent rhetoric really mattered… I could definitely see some of these guys grabbing the guns hidden in the basement, ready for their call for the “final stand” against the evils of feminism. Fuck… All I can do is sit back and say “Why oh why can’t you see what you are saying is batshit insane?”

Ah well… Bring on the justifications and explanations. Maybe if we keep them busy online, they won’t have time to do anything in real life. One can only hope.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

“Since he didn’t even target his ex-wife in the salon, I cannot condone his action. Had he successfully assasinated his ex-wife, I would deem the other victims collatoral damage.” – Raymond

… Fuck…

Wisteria
Wisteria
9 years ago

Ami, two more.

“But Sharon Osbourne and the women on The Talk laughed about the woman who cut off her husband’s penis.”

“How dare feminists use this to further their agenda! How evil do you have to be to politicize the murders of eight people?” Of course all the while, they ignore that they’re using the murders to criticize women, courts, judges, and lawyers; to threaten the same; and to politicize their agenda.

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
9 years ago

Pecunium’s shtick is hilarious. I like to imagine his voice as really high and whiny as he brandishes a water pistol around.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Thanks for sharing your sexual fantasies, MRAL.

So, you know, mass murder. For or against?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

Having looked through some of the comments on the article, I see three sides. One is horrified at the other two sides, and assert the guy should be in jail. Cool.

The next are quick to pay lip service to what is ethically right and wrong about killing people, but seem to look to the future with grim satisfaction when predicting that more and more men will “be forced” to go on killing sprees. Saying that, while murder isn’t nice, it is the only thing to be expected. Not cool.

Then there’s the side that simply outright endorses the killing spree. Who say that if genders were reversed, feminists would be quick to sympathize with the woman (no… no we would not). Who forget any details about the case and treat it like some conniving woman were stealing a mans child with the help of the system, and his only recourse was death. Who look with relish towards the coming war between the sexes. So not cool it hasn’t been funny for a long time.

I realize that these forums are essentially a selective group that gravitate towards stories of violence perpetrated by men, treating them as heroic epics, but jesus. If I were an MRA, I would distance myself the fuck away from these people. Where are the stories on the spear-head titled “How Not to Support the Men’s Rights Movement?” They’d have no lack of material.

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
9 years ago

I think AnnArchist is kind of a douche bag. But the only reason this is news is because wimminz were viktims.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Pecunium’s shtick is hilarious. I like to imagine his voice as really high and whiny as he brandishes a water pistol around.

This must be another example of the “high IQ” you have right? A college student who has never supported himself (and, in all likelihood never been in so much as a real fist fight) suggesting that a person who has been active duty military in the Middle East, is weak.

This from someone who brags about how he could kick the shit out of a woman.

Jesus.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

“Joint” custody does not mean “physical” custody and you can google both terms for clarification. “Joint” means every other weekend at best and only if the ex feels like it. Everyone should know this by now. Again I don’t think violence is the answer but what other avenue did the current system leave him? None. Period. Then you are surprised?

This guy was likely looking at *never* seeing his children again no not ever and we make movies where the hero slays 1,000 to prevent to the accolades of a million … you are surprised… sorry but the hole in your story is a little bigger. Actually it is pointless to debate this as for starters you are probably just a troll and if you are not, so terminally stupid as to be beyond hope. This problem *will* solve itself when enough fathers have nothing to lose. – Remorhaz

These people do not live in reality… At all.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

But the only reason this is news is because wimminz were viktims.

Yeah. Just like the Montgomery Sniper. And Columbine. Oh, and the Virginia Tech shooting. And Fort Hood.

I mean, who ever even heard of those?

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
9 years ago

So Nobinyamu thinks that women physically weak and pathetic as fuck? Such a misogynist.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

This from someone who brags about how he could kick the shit out of a woman.

I think Brandon was the one bragging he could beat up a woman; MRAL was the one bragging that he could jerk off to a picture of a woman. I’m only correcting you because I would hate for MRAL to not receive all the adulation that is his dick’s due. ;p

Rutee Katreya
9 years ago

Just nuke the planet from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

Rutee Katreya
9 years ago

I think Brandon was the one bragging he could beat up a woman; MRAL was the one bragging that he could jerk off to a picture of a woman. I’m only correcting you because I would hate for MRAL to not receive all the adulation that is his dick’s due. ;p

No, this was both of them. MRAL didn’t write us fanfic, but he did talka bout how he too could take women.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

So Nobinyamu thinks that women physically weak and pathetic as fuck? Such a misogynist.

Aren’t you back in school? Shouldn’t your arguments/statements/trollings/ be getting smarter? Bring back your Dad2Boy sock-puppet. That at least showed some effort and creativity.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Just nuke the planet from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

Intelligent extraterrestrial life: We’re on it!

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

… wut?

Hey MRAL, lay off the meds, dude. Or take more… I can’t tell which.

1 2 3 9