Some misogynists seem to have a really difficult time telling the difference between consensual kinkiness and domestic violence. Over on the Happier Abroad forums, our old friend Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) – who doesn’t really seem to be all that happy, honestly – tells the fellows about a woman he recently met. (Note: the faux ellipses in the quotes to follow are all from the original.)
I am now able to look a woman in the eyes, even from some distance, and know if she is a decent woman or not. I only developed this two years or so ago and have only had it happen 4 times. I am not saying that it is ONLY these women who are decent women….I am saying that the 4 this has happened to turned out to be pretty good women…
By a “pretty good woman” he seems to mean a woman who hates women nearly as much as he does:
when asking about my view of women I have been absolutely straightforward and to the point….her response “AT LAST…..a man who really knows what we are like….that makes me feel so much better because I do not have to worry about trying to present myself as I am not…..you already really know what we are like!”
She is HAPPY that I describe women as mostly liars and manipulators who try to get men to do what they want…..it is a RELIEF for her to meet such a man…..how about that?
And, even better, she likes to be spanked!
she openly says that she felt that if we were together with her strong personality she would be likely to provoke me and try to hurt me emotionally…..to which I replied “if you are naughty I will put you over my knee and spank you”..to which she replied “and I shall be naughty to make sure I am spanked”.
I was telling this new lady I met about this and how I had spanked my daughter when she was willful and naughty as well as my fav#1……she almost SWOONED at the idea of being spanked for being naughty….It was as clear as day she was very interested in getting herself spanked for being naughty…..I noticed this and pointed it out….she tried to deny it.
Uh, if she just told you she wanted to “be naughty to make sure” she’d be spanked, why would she deny this a minute later?
Somehow I suspect that this conversation didn’t transpire exactly as Mr. Nolan says it did.
In any case, our intrepid storyteller moves on to elaborate on his perverse (and not in a good way) sexualized defense of child abuse:
I said to her “it is completely normal for a girl to want to provoke her father into needing to spank her, once he does she knows he is big and strong and will protect her and provide for her….she feel more comfortable, more secure, and she will often cuddle up to her father and feel very good towards him after being spanked….my daughter did that all the time…..I bet you did that with your father too…..
And then on to a defense of violence against women:
This need does not go away just because the girl becomes a woman…..she still needs to provoke her man and he still needs to spank her so that she feels he is strong and powerful and can protect and provide for her……that is how women are.
Apparently men can’t truly “bond” with women without hitting them:
This is why it is such a disaster to say “never hit women”…..it destroys the womans ability to bond closely with the man via a good spanking. It destroys her ability to feel the security of protector and provider….something she needs…indeed….it is so insane now they call that “domestic violence” and the man can go to jail for doing what the woman needs to be done for her.”
She just shook her head and said “you are so right”……I am wondering if we will see much more of each other.
I certainly hope not.
Happily, there’s every reason to believe that this conversation is a product of Nolan’s imagination; he seems to live in a world all his own.
NOTE: Thanks to Sandra in the comments for pointing me to this horrible comment.
EDITED TO ADD: Mr. Nolan (c) has responded in the comments here, and over on Happier Abroad in more detail. Apparently I totally misrepresented him because I wasn’t able to figure out from his badly written comment that he was talking about two different women who loved being spanked. Also, because I mentioned his name with the weird punctuation , he thinks I am “subject to the fee of 1,000 troy ounces of 99.9% pure gold should I choose to levy it.” (You see, Mr. Nolan (c) has set up his own international court system in his own head, in which mentioning his name with that little copyright symbol attached to it apparently means that you owe him lots of gold.) I haven’t read all of his comments; I’m afraid I’ll end up owing him even more gold if I do.
Well, I wasn’t really thinking about hitting, more about stuff like twisting the ear, yanking a small dog up by the scruff of its neck, various kinds of collars that you can give really unpleasant leash yanks with etc. Or merely threatening behaviour like pushing a dog down on its back and staring it in its face while the dog lies there with its tail all tucked up between its legs. All this is much more common than actually hitting the dog, and it’s all pretty unpleasant punishment methods for the dog.
It’s not like I’m saying it’s always and in every single situation WRONG to give the dog a painful experience, in some situations that could be the least bad alternative. But please be honest and just say you’re doing something unpleasant as a way to deter a certain behaviour, rather than giving some crap about how dogs love a “strong leader” and “strong leader”=punishes with unpleasant methods.
And yeah, I know humans aren’t dogs. For instance, you have to make a lot of decisions for your dog because it doesn’t understand the rules our society rests on or the justification for these rules, while humans can take responsibility for their own actions. I just thought the line of reasoning Nolan used here sounded a lot like some dog training clichés, so I made a comparison.
Scroll up for some comments from Mr. Nolan. I would respond, but I am too busy collecting the 1000 troy ounces of 99.9% pure gold I owe him.
FAIL.
Also, Nolan, as Supreme Judge in Man Boobz Scented Candles Admiralty Court I’m levying a 2000 troy ounce of 99.999999% pure gold fine on you just because I can. I will accept payment in pizza, though not all at the same time.
If he’s not going to comment here, does that means the universe will let me un-read his comments?
Time to begging us to visit his blog: 0 seconds
Shaka, when the walls fell! I bargled the blockquotes.
Is this a collective punishment on the entire blog, or are individuals who bring up the name of Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) for the purposes of mockery liable for a similar fine?
And given that I’m on a different continent to Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) and therefore operate under a different legal system that doesn’t recognise that names can be copyrighted, how exactly does Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) expect to collect his recompense for my taking Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)’s name in vain? Why, one might almost think that Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) was resorting to empty threats in a feeble attempt to silence his critics, if one were minded to think uncharitable thoughts about Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c).
Very palpable butthurt over on his blog. Apparently his eeeevul ex is now begging him to take her back. No mention of the kids.
“His blog”, of course, referring to the blog of Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c). I meant to be more specific about having popped over to read Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)’s blog.
“I’M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON YOUR BLOG”, he says in a comment on your blog.
Nice escape clause you gave yourself there. Of course you won’t choose to, because you can’t.
Quoting directly from the blog of Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c):
Truly we have been graced by the presence of Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) on Manboobz. He is a paragon of manly virtue!
Oh, wait, there was another comment by the One Who Will Not Comment Here caught in the spam filter. I let that one through too.
All we need is tom martin and it will be a delusional troll party!!
Damn, ninja’d by Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) himself!
Peter, will I be fined if I call you pan man?
I want to know if Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)’s children are begging to have him back as well.
So now Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) writes fan letters to himself while pretending to be his own ex-wife? (In Comic Sans, no less.)
This could get weirder, but I am not sure how.
Somehow Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)’s freakout over use of his “copyrighted” name makes me think of this:
Woah, trippy. This is like one of those “This sentence is false” t-shirts.
I’m not yet sure which is funner: that (s)p-a:n(c) wants 1000 troy ounces of gold for writing his name, or that he wants seventy pounds of gold for writing his name.
If you write his name backwards, does he owe you gold? I’m pretty sure Admiralty Court and Common Law follow the Mxyzptlk rule, although since that was made in the Silver Age I’m not sure if it counts for gold transactions.
(Yes, I’m reaching that far for a precious metals joke. Fun fact: “Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c)” is harder for me to remember how to spell/punctuate than Mxyzptlk.)
Sandra, I believe that Nolan came up with this idea of incorporating his name so that if he was sued for support the court would have to treat him as a corporation under the UCC. Of course, when you sue some you always write on the complaint, Jane Doe, sued in her individual capacity or Jane Doe Co. sued in its corporate capacity and so on.
With Nolan it’s hard to know what’s true but I doubt that his wife was getting any child support from another man because the kids were minors and Nolan claims he was married 24 years to her.
I also also doubt that he has any money or assets and the one court hearing that he likes to show in a video is some sort of dispute with his former wife for a sum that is under $1k.
His alleged theft of money by his wife wasn’t even actual cash but had something to do with a co.. he had but from what I can see the co. was worthless. He’s claiming that she stole it and that it was worth about $1m. but that’s only in his mind.
Let’s try: (c)naloN :werdnA-reteP
Or does this work? (ɔ)uɐןou :ʍǝɹpuɐ-ɹǝʇǝd
+——————————-+
| Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) |
| Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) | <—- a mirror
| Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) |
+——————————-+