Paul Elam has so far refrained from responding to the halfway-on-the-mark, halfway-completely-ridiculous criticism of the Men’s Rights movement leveled by rapey PUA douchenozzle Roosh that we discussed yesterday. Not even that bit comparing the very serious dudes reading A Voice for Men to silly ladies reading Cosmo was enough to provoke the oh-so-easily provoked Elam. Either he’s gotten very Zen about criticism from PUAs, or he’s spent the last several days punching pillows and muttering under his breath about evil “pussy beggars.”
But some of Elam’s acolytes took it upon themselves to respond for him. My favorite comment is this bait-and-switcher from MrStodern, which starts off with a vaguely reasonable observation before descending into misogynist nonsense.
Apparently feminists love pickup artists, and the only legitimate reason for dudes to have sex with women is to teach them a lesson. Who knew?
@some guy bored with your schtick
I think your comments should focus on the life expectancy of hippos because thats a far more noble pursuit. You are a failure of a commenter if you don’t start changing. Please reconsider or you might have to turn in your commenting badge.
Bored troll is so bored he:
a.)can’t leave
b.)can’t capitalize his name
c.)can’t stop posting
d.)has to keep telling us how bored he is
e.)keeps insisting david needs to blog about stuff he wants to blog
f.)begs us to do his research for him
g.)keeps asking david random questions
h.)quotes and responds to himself
i.)must defend elam
j.)must constantly bring up david’s journalism
k.)must insist atheism+ is totally like the split between pua and mras
l.)has to keep making passive aggressive remarks
m.)has to explain how rape jokes are like banksy
n.)makes up obvious lies
o.)must explain how Thomas Ball’s suicide was activism
Funny you have been doing a lot here for someone who is so bored of this site…
This blog also never covers real issues like the conflict in the middle east, genetically modified food, or animal abuse! ZOMG FEMINAZI!
Uh, yeah, I’m pretty sure ‘this blog doesn’t cover real enough issues’ is not actually anybody’s problem with it, and it doesn’t even work as a smokescreen.
it’s not even, ‘why don’t you cover real issues’ it’s ‘why don’t you cover this one woman paul elam has decided to obsess over’
dude is pissed off that the blog that spends a good chunk of time making fun of paul elam isn’t being enough of a mouthpiece for paul elam
david why arent you doing more to expose that chair clint eastwood is really mad at
david why arent you doing more about the fact that the deaf cat decided that 1:30 am was the right time to want to explore my room and it’s not like i can kick her out because she’s just so adorable and sweet and deaf and oh shit i think the devil cat just saw i let deaf cat in my room i am going to pay for that
And David practically never talks about boerboels.
New theory – some guy is a performance artist intent on demonstrating various theories about how privileged people behave on the internet. He’s just too perfect an example of the concept “arrogant privileged jackass” to be real, right?
jimmy:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rapey
http://manboobz.com/2012/08/02/roosh-v-has-a-little-trouble-with-the-concept-of-no-tw-rape-apologia/
Roosh isn’t going to sue. He’d have to come for the US for weeks to do so and who’s he going to fuck while he’s here?
david:
the roosh post you link too has plenty to criticize, including the notion that women who have voluntarily removed their clothes can’t be raped, and that men are unstoppable penis robots. but the notion that some women sometimes say “no” when they don’t literally mean it shouldn’t be controversial, imo. my first girlfriend was extremely frustrated with me when i took her pre-coital “no”s at face value. finally, she explained that she wanted me to be more aggressive in bed. with sexual experience, it gets pretty easy to use tone-of-voice and contextual clues to tell when this sort of thing is going on, and when it isn’t.
@Jimmy
You should never assume thats what a woman means, if she was using “no” as a means to tell you keep going then she should have discussed it with you beforehand. It doesn’t hurt to take things at face value if you aren’t sure with stuff like “stop” and “no” so its not really a legitimate claim. If someone tells you to stop or no then you should stop even if they don’t seem uncomfortable to you because if you keep going and they don’t want you to you are fucking raping a woman.
I think tone/body language is important too though, if the person you are with seems to be uncomfortable or not enjoying it then you should stop and make sure they are alright. It doesn’t hurt to communicate clearly but just because they said yes or didn’t say anything doesn’t mean they are okay.
Also roosh was talking about raping women even if they struggled/fought/said to stop, did you even read the thing he linked to? He wasn’t talking about women who mean hell yeah when they say “no” he was talking about ignoring a women’s pleas because women secretly like to be raped.
Jimmy: Dude, the guy talked about rape game, in what he himself called rape, and specifically endorsed it. “Rapey” honestly is giving him too much wiggle room at this point. And yes, devaluing consent is, in itself, rapey, which is what he was doing. Don’t play games and try to confuse what the idiot is talking about.
That’s between your girlfriend and you, you grand idiot. You do not assume that ‘no’ means anything but ‘no’ unless specifically told to by the specific woman you are considering banging.
I’m really tired of the just-so stories from dudes about how they met this one woman who said no and actually meant “try harder”, and therefore by implication if a woman says no then maybe…
No. Don’t do that. If a woman says no and doesn’t mean it, the worst thing that happens is that neither of you get laid when you might have wanted to. If she did mean it, and you continue, you’re a rapist. Use your words, guys. Why would you want to be sleeping with someone who’s such a child that she can’t just admit what she wants anyway?*
*I know that the answers are “because this isn’t an actual issue, it’s just an excuse to ignore women’s stated boundaries and pretend you’re doing it for their own good”, “because nothing is more important than getting my cock wet”, and “see, women don’t mean what they say so there’s no need to pay attention when they’re saying something that you don’t want to hear!”.
*(2)If you and your partner want to roleplay some sort of scenario where no doesn’t mean no, then cool, do that. But be grownups and talk about it first. Someone who can’t do that is not someone you want to be sleeping with for all kinds of reasons.
The idea of Roosh suing someone for calling him “rapey” is hilarious.
It’s a bit like David Irving suing Penguin Books for calling him a Holocaust denier – not only did he lose, but his entire reputation as a serious historian was forensically shredded as a happy by-product.
So it would be a gamble. To say the least.
Yeah it’s totally out of line that hte guy who says you should rape women if it gets you laid, and lays out what that means, may in fact be a rapist. That isn’t remotely supporting evidence.
i should be clear. when this sort of things happens, the “no”s almost always occur well before intercourse. by the time intercourse occurs, it is pretty clear to all concerned that consent has been granted.
the point of feigning resistance, as i’ve heard it explained to me by several women, is to ascertain whether a man is sexually aggressive enough to satisfy her. “talking about it” before hand, as these women explain it, ruins the vibe, because its supposed to be about the man taking what he wants, whereas the prior “talk” negated the purpose of this. they don’t object to “talking about it” because they are too immature to articulate what they want; they object to it, on the contrary, because they know exactly what they want. the women i’ve met who enjoyed this sort of play are not at all child-like, and are actually quite mature people. calling them “children” is actually a pernicious way of denying women who like this kind of thing agency.
that having been said, i wouldn’t recommend continuing the progression of foreplay in the face of “no”s, as roosh appears to do. i think the admonitions to “use your words, guys” is very good advice. i have found that a simple “you don’t really mean that, do you?”, said confidently with a smirk, will usually do the trick. at this point, the woman either blush and admit that she does not, or else make it clear that she does. the line serves well because it allows the man to appear confident and aggressive, which is the point of the feigned “no” exercise, while at the same time refraining from violating a woman’s physical boundaries.
i should say that i don’t know very much about roosh. he may well be “rapey”, as david says. i was merely objecting to the term “rapey”, which i originally thought was used to describe a rapist.
Dude, please stop writing out your sexual fantasies for us. It’s icky.
Also, again for those who are a little slow – why on earth would you think that something that you’ve experienced with “a few” or “several” women should be assumed to be applicable to women as a whole?
when did i say it was applicable to women as a whole?
Knowing what you want isn’t immature, but getting pissy with your partner because they didn’t read your mind and magically know what you want is super duper immature.
I mean, it’s all a moot point because I don’t believe for a second that you’re accurately relaying how these hypothetical women hypothetically described their bedroom preferences, but still.
(Also, seriously, it’s one thing to want your partner to be sexually aggressive and assertive; it’s another thing entirely to conflate “assertive” with “ignores me when I tell him to stop [without that having been negotiated beforehand].” You wanna talk about pernicious ideas, let’s start with the one that defines rapist behaviour as confidence and sexual prowess. Blech.)
You can play as many word games as you like, but it’s pretty clear what your words imply. Also, you’re aware that for women who aren’t into the kind of games you’re describing the way you write about sex produces a feeling rather similar to having spiders crawl all over your skin, right? I quite literally shuddered when reading some parts of your second to last comment.
He didn’t say ALL women, you guys, just SOME women, who also conveniently hate being asked if they feel that way and are therefore totally indistinguishable from women who DO mean “no” so I guess men have no choice but to ignore what women say because otherwise they might never get laid.
Ninja’d! Also, inb4 accusations of strawmanning.
Pouting because your partner didn’t read your mind is indeed almost comically immature, as is acting like talking about what you want in bed renders sex un-fun. Like gametime, I don’t for a second believe that the way dudebro is describing these women is an accurate depiction of them, but he sure does seem to be getting off on the fantasy that he’s created.
There’s also the fact that positing this “well some women like it when silent manly men silently take them, as manly men should!” stuff in response to Roosh’s very clear depictions of a situation that would meet almost any legal definition of rape is creepy as hell, especially when you try to backpedal about what you were implying.
the woman i mentioned was in high school, as was i, so its no surprise if that she was immature, as was i.
whether you believe me or not is something i have no control over. but i never once said or implied that all women like this kind of thing. in fact, i explicitly allowed for the very real possibility that “no” means no when i advised not to continue with foreplay in the face of resistance, whether feigned or genuine.