Categories
creepy excusing abuse irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles pledge drive reddit sexual abuse warren farrell

MRA founding father Warren Farrell responds to questions about his incest research with evasive non-answers. And a smiley.

Watch out: He has a Ph.D!
Watch out: He has a Ph.D!

The Man Boobz Pledge Drive continues. See here for more details, or click below to donate.

And now back to our regularly scheduled post:

Warren Farrell, whose 1993 book The Myth of Male Power essentially set the agenda for the Men’s Rights movement we know (and don’t love) today, did an “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit yesterday.

Most of the questions he chose to answer were pretty much softballs, and his answers largely reiterated things he’s said before many times. But he was also asked some pointed questions about his views on incest which he chose to answer. Well, sort of. Instead of clearing up the issue, he dug his hole a little deeper.

[TRIGGER WARNING for incest/child abuse apologia.]

Some backstory: As longtime readers of this blog know, Farrell spent several years in the 1970s researching a book about incest, which ultimately never appeared. In 1977, Farrell gave an interview to, of all things, Penthouse magazine, in which he tried to explain his “findings” and his views on the topic generally. The interview revealed that Farrell at the time had some exceedingly creepy views on incest and child sexual abuse.

If you haven’t read my post on the subject, going through the interview in detail, I suggest you take a few moments to read it now. (Here’s a transcript of the entire Penthouse article; in my post you can find links to high-quality scans of the original magazine pages – in case anyone still doubts he said what he indeed said.)

In short, Farrell believed there were “positive” aspects to incest that weren’t being talked about because society deemed the topic “taboo.” Indeed, the working title of Farrell’s book was The Last Taboo: The Three Faces of Incest.

In the past, Farrell has been, to say the least, a bit evasive when it comes to clarifying what he meant by some of the most troubling comments in the Penthouse interview, and would seem to prefer that all evidence of his interest in the issue of incest vanish down Orwell’s famous memory hole.

On Reddit, Farrell was presented with a perfect opportunity to set the record straight, both on his views on incest and child sexual abuse generally as well as on a number of specific quotes. (Note: as you’ll see, most of the first quote listed is the Penthouse author’s paraphrase, but the rest are all directly from Farrell.)

RDwfQuest

In his response, Farrell addresses none of the quotes directly, and his comments raise more questions than they answer.

RDwfAns

“Excellent questions,” he says, before going on to answer none of them. Let’s break down his non-answer.

bottom-line, i did this research when my research skills as a new Ph.D. were in the foreground and my raising two daughters was in the future. had i and my wife helped raise two daughters first, the intellectual interest would have evaporated. life teaches; children teach you more. 🙂

He starts off by mentioning his Ph.D., though he doesn’t mention that it was in political science and not psychology. Moreover, his discussions of his research in the Penthouse interview suggest that his methodology was anything but scientific.

His reference to his daughters seems to suggest that if he had had children he would have realized that there really was no “positive” aspect to incest. One might have assumed he would have picked up on this when the overwhelming majority of the women he interviewed “admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest,” as the Penthouse article delicately puts it.

Farrell ends this paragraph with a smiley, as if the years he spent trying to find examples of “positive” incest were all just a harmless misunderstanding.

now, for some depth. i haven’t published anything on this research because i saw from the article from which you are quoting how easy it was to have the things i said about the way the people i interviewed felt be confused with what i felt.

This is completely disingenuous. It’s not uncommon to find sexual abusers who’ve convinced themselves that the abuse they inflicted upon children was a good thing for their victims, and most people who write about the subject have no problem distinguishing their views from the abusers and abuse apologists they report on.

No, the really disturbing things about Farrell’s interview are the statements in which he expresses his own opinions on the subject. For example, this quote (referenced in the questions on Reddit), in which he describes some of what he evidently sees as the negative aspects of the incest “taboo.”

[M]illions of people … are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.

You can see that whole quote in context in the original article here. Farrell now claims that he didn’t say “genitally” but “generally,” though if you replace that one word in that quote it’s scarcely any better.

The Penthouse article also contains this astounding quote from him:

“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.”

And this:

“Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he summarizes. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma.”

In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty. Farrell gives absolutely no indication here that he is explaining someone else’s views; it seems to be what he himself believes. And until and unless he specifically addresses this quote it is hard to read it any other way.

Let’s go back to Farrell’s “answer.”

i have always been opposed to incest, and still am … .

That’s true, at least to an extent. In the Penthouse article, even though he seems to agree with many of the abusers’ rationalizations for their abuse, he does state specifically that he’s

not recommending incest between parent and child, and especially not between father and daughter.

But then he goes on to say this:

The great majority of fathers can grasp the dynamics of positive incest ‘intellectually’. But in a society that encourages looking at women in almost purely sexual terms, I don’t believe they can translate this understanding into practice.

As far as I can figure it, he’s saying that he’s opposed to father-daughter incest because in today’s sexist society it’s … hard for fathers to do incest properly?  If that can be seen as being “opposed to incest” I guess he is opposed. I would love some clarification from Farrell on this point.

Back to Farrell’s answers on Reddit. After sort of, kind of, suggesting maybe his research was a bad idea (in that part above about his daughters) he returns to defending it:

but i was trying to be a good researcher and ask people about their experience without the bias of assuming it was negative or positive.

Really? Seeing abuse as abuse is “bias?” Would you consider it reasonable to study, say, murder, or violent assault, or even someone falling to their death off a mountain “without the bias of assuming it was negative or positive?” Or is it just sexual abuse of young girls and boys that merits such “objectivity?”

And yes, though Farrell now portrays himself as an advocate for both men and boys, he told the Penthouse interviewer that “boys don’t seem to suffer” from sexual abuse — sorry, incest. (That quote is a paraphrase of Farrell’s views from the Penthouse author.)

And then comes this amazing bit, in which he suggests that his interest in challenging the “taboo” of incest was in some ways inspired by the gay liberation movement of the 1970s – because on some level the sexual abuse of children is roughly similar to gay sex between consenting adults?

i had learned this from the misinformation we had gotten about gay people by working from the starting assumption of its dysfunction.

Amazing, just amazing.

You might think that Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers would be appalled by Farrell’s creepy non-answer. Nope. Most of them seem to think he addressed all possible concerns with the issue, with one poster getting dozens of upvotes for suggesting that MRAs bookmark “Dr Farrell’s response to the incest (mis)quote …  for easy reference!”

It wasn’t a misquote, and his “response” was worse than no response at all.

The apologies for Farrell’s non-answer aren’t surprising. Other MRAs who are familiar with the interview have also gone to great lengths to explain it away; indeed,  one of Farrell’s fans went as far as suggesting that “Penthouse was not always “pornographic” and to characterise it as that is just to demonise and imply that the article as being far more overtly sexual that it was.”

I will repeat what I said last time I wrote about Farrell: if he disagrees with any of my conclusions here, or feels he wishes to clarify or explicitly repudiate anything or everything in the Penthouse article, I’m offering him a chance to explain himself here in a post on this blog — in his own words, unedited.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

493 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CassandraSays
7 years ago

No matter how you rephrase that quote it still sounds sketchy. Parents who don’t caress their kids enough are repressing their sexuality? Making the kids prone to insecurity in later life, maybe, if we assuming he’s using caress in a non-sexual way. But damaging the sexuality of the kids? That only makes sense if he’s talking about a framework in which sex between parents and kids is normal and not doing it is therefore harmful.

There’s no way to spin this to make it sound good. The smartest spin would be that all kinds of groups of people said creepy, weird shit about the sexuality of children in the 70s, so it’s not surprising that the MRM has one of those people in their ranks too, so it’s interesting that you’ve collectively chosen to try to defend the actual statements instead.

(Well, some of you. I am somewhat heartened to note that Farrell’s statements are a bridge too far even for some MRAs.)

Athywren
Athywren
7 years ago

I know Argenti’s already addressed this, but I won’t be able to get my jaw off the floor unless I parrot zir.

6 in 200 which, according to my calculator, is 0,(3)%, i.e. where the 3 repetes itself indefinitely and it’s less than 1%

According to your calculator?
I try not to be an elitist, but you don’t need a calculator to divide integers by two. I can’t even figure out how you got it to recur at .3 in a single operation, but dividing 6 by 20 would give you .3 (non-recurring) which is what you’d need to do to get the percentage if it was 6 out of every 2000.

Also, a necro-troll is someone who trolls on dead threads. Presumably in an attempt to get the last word and appear to have been sharing an almighty truth that was ignored by those who fear it or something.

Oh, and while I’ve seen my brother hug, cuddle and wrap up my niece, I’ve never seen him caress her… and I don’t think it’s a repression of her or his own sexuality to do that. And, how could it be a repression of sexuality unless it was a sexual contact that was being avoided?

CassandraSays
7 years ago

I feel like Farrell was also trying to create a false dichotomy between families in which parents gently/genitally/generally/whatever he claims he was trying to say caress their children and a family where kids are deprived of all physical contact, like that cruel experiment with the baby monkeys. He’s creating an either/or situation where none actually existed.

Jose
Jose
7 years ago

kittehserf: “Why are you defending Farrell, who essentially said that girls who didn’t like being raped by their fathers (and yes, that incest IS rape) were just conned into not liking it by society?”

I do agree with you when say that father-daughter incest is rape (in fact, I said that when I said that not all incest is rape). But he’s not saying that the daughters “were just conned into not liking it by society”. When he said what you think he said, he was comparing daughters raped by their fathers with sons raped by their mothers. As we well know (especially from an infamous article at this very site), men of any age being raped by women of any age is not taken as seriously as it should be, being called things like “good”, “funny” or a “lucky occurence” and, so, being relativized and swept under the rug.

In other words, I’m defending Farrell because you are distorting him.

Athyweren: “Oh, and while I’ve seen my brother hug, cuddle and wrap up my niece, I’ve never seen him caress her…”

Those things are caressing a child. The point I made is that “caressing” is not necessarily sexual and, if the word “genitally” is wrong (which I believe it is), it makes Farrell’s “caressing” quote non-creepy.

“According to your calculator?
I try not to be an elitist, but you don’t need a calculator to divide integers by two. I can’t even figure out how you got it to recur at .3 in a single operation, but dividing 6 by 20 would give you .3 (non-recurring) which is what you’d need to do to get the percentage if it was 6 out of every 2000.”

I said “according to my calculator” because I was too lazy, so I divided 6/200 in my calculator, but then multiplied by 100 by my own (and multiplying by 100 in calculators is just stupid), but wrong (which is even more stupid).

CassandraSays: “I feel like Farrell was also trying to create a false dichotomy between families in which parents gently/genitally/generally/whatever he claims he was trying to say caress their children and a family where kids are deprived of all physical contact, like that cruel experiment with the baby monkeys. He’s creating an either/or situation where none actually existed.”

There is no “false dichotomy” because caressing doesn’t mean what you think it means.

P. S.: Sorry for commenting on this article when it is clearly out of time, but disagreeing with people is not “trolling” by any means. I found this article on Google and didnt pay attention to the date, so sorry.

cloudiah
7 years ago

What “infamous article” here are you referring to, pray tell?

Because I don’t think anyone here makes light of female rape of boys or men — or if they do so out of ignorance, they are corrected, and if they continue they are criticized pretty thoroughly.

And yes, if you take away the entire context of what Farrell wrote at the time, and then change “genitally” to “generally”, AND then accept your interpretation of “caress,” then and only then do Farrell’s words become innocuous. I’m not willing to do that much massaging — or “caressing,” if you will — of his words, and prefer the more obvious contextual interpretation. Read what CassandraSays wrote at 6:12 pm, dude.

Jose
Jose
7 years ago

“What ‘infamous article’ here are you referring to, pray tell?

Because I don’t think anyone here makes light of female rape of boys or men — or if they do so out of ignorance, they are corrected, and if they continue they are criticized pretty thoroughly.”

The one on CDC’s stats of rape. And, no, you don’t make light of female rape of boys or men in the way I said – that’s society in general -, but you do (or did) diminish the importance (as did the CDC) by not considering it rape but “sexual assault”, which inherently diminished theimportance of such events.

cloudiah
7 years ago

Jose, did you read that thread? Nearly everyone here called it rape, and in the end we also convinced David. (Who never took the position that “sexual assault” was less serious than rape; his was always a semantic argument.)

In other words, we modeled here a way to have a discussion about this and change opinions.

So you need to define the way you’re using the word “you” in your last sentence.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

Oooh, look at those goalposts galloping off into the distance…

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

I like Jose: “ok, you didn’t make light of female rape of boys or men but you did diminish the importance of it”

/rollseyes

Jose
Jose
7 years ago

cloudiah: “Jose, did you read that thread? Nearly everyone here called it rape, and in the end we also convinced David. (Who never took the position that “sexual assault” was less serious than rape; his was always a semantic argument.)”

Sexual assault doesn’t have the same gravitas as rape and normally carries less penalties than rape, so David was inherently diminising the importance of male victims of female rape. There are no “semantic arguments” whatsoever; if it really were a semantic argument, he’d just shut up and say it’s rape. I’m glad he changed his opinion. (BTW, this makes “bad math” the only good argument – care to develop it, David)?

“So you need to define the way you’re using the word ‘you’ in your last sentence.”

I was mentioning David and all the commenters at Manboobz, but that’s because I didn’t ay attention to the comments (except for the one where David recants his made-to-penentrate/rape dichotomy, and only because there was a direct link to it). I read Toysoldier and then Manboobz. As they say, “tell me who you’re with and I’ll tell who you are”.

titianblue: “Oooh, look at those goalposts galloping off into the distance…”

No goalpost, just clarifying Warren Farrell.

Athywren
Athywren
7 years ago

Athyweren: “Oh, and while I’ve seen my brother hug, cuddle and wrap up my niece, I’ve never seen him caress her…”

Those things are caressing a child. The point I made is that “caressing” is not necessarily sexual and, if the word “genitally” is wrong (which I believe it is), it makes Farrell’s “caressing” quote non-creepy.

Ok, let’s pretend that the word caress has no cultural context around it. I still don’t see, as I said in the paragraph that, apparently, you only half read before quoting, it’s sexual repression to fail to perform a non-sexual activity with a child:

and I don’t think it’s a repression of her or his own sexuality to do that. And, how could it be a repression of sexuality unless it was a sexual contact that was being avoided?

And, no, you don’t make light of female rape of boys or men in the way I said – that’s society in general -, but you do (or did) diminish the importance (as did the CDC) by not considering it rape but “sexual assault”, which inherently diminished theimportance of such events.

What do you think diminish means? Rape is sexual assault. Does that mean that rape is not as serious as rape? To be in the same category as a thing does not automatically equate with being less important than that thing.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

No goalpost, just clarifying Warren Farrell.

and yet, suddenly, you’re making weak-sauce arguments about a thread that had nothing to do with him. How did that happen?

CassandraSays
7 years ago

I read Toysoldier and then Manboobz. As they say, “tell me who you’re with and I’ll tell who you are”.

Oh, indeed, the fact that you consider Toy Soldier to be a credible source does tell people rather a lot about you.

Jose
Jose
7 years ago

“What do you think diminish means? Rape is sexual assault. Does that mean that rape is not as serious as rape? To be in the same category as a thing does not automatically equate with being less important than that thing.”

When you’re distinguishing “sexual assault” from “rape”, it’s implied “sexual assault other than rape”. Common people, when talking about sexual assault, don’t usually include rape into that category and talk of sexual assault as something lesser than rape. So David was inherently diminishing the importance of f>m rape.

“and yet, suddenly, you’re making weak-sauce arguments about a thread that had nothing to do with him. How did that happen?”

It had nothing to do with him, but it did actually have something to do with his “boys don’t seem to suffer from abuse” argument – in both cases, there is a societal force that diminishes the importance of f>m rape. (BTW, key word: seem.)

“…are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

Because people will become afraid of their feelings with other people, sexual or not, and kids will grow emotionally detached and will also be afraid of their feelings. He talked about sexuality because this was a sexuality article and he wanted to center around sexuality.

CassandraSays
7 years ago

I wonder how Farrell feels about having an acolyte with psychic powers.

CassandraSays
7 years ago

Also, if Jose is going to fail to provide either an interesting argument or lulz I guess we’re going to have to make our own entertainment. This morning’s game is songs suggested by Jose’s boring and repetitive comments. I’ll get us started.

Jose
Jose
7 years ago

CassandraSays: “I wonder how Farrell feels about having an acolyte with psychic powers.”

He doesn’t. thank you very much. Major magazines, porn or not, don’t just publish pro-incest material. These quotes are quote-mined and can easily be interpreted differently. Yours is the only “logical” way to interpret these quotes because your interpretations are clouded by your bias.

“Oh, indeed, the fact that you consider Toy Soldier to be a credible source does tell people rather a lot about you.”

Why isn’t he? Oh, right, because he’s a liar when he says he was raped by his feminist aunt when he was small. He says “only” that his aunt was a feminist and that her rape was potentialized by her aunt’s own take on feminism, not that feminism is pro-rape-of-boys or that it’s legitimate inside feminism. But you don’t get the difference, so he’s not a credible source because you think he thinks feminists are pro-rape-of-boys.

“This morning’s game is songs suggested by Jose’s boring and repetitive comments.”

I have to be repetitive because your own stupidity is also repetitive.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

Jose sure is beating up that straw Cassandrasays.

CassandraSays
7 years ago

And now he thinks he can read other people’s minds too! I think Jose needs to talk to someone about these special powers that he keeps thinking he has.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

Yep, Jose:
1. Knows what Farrell really means, regardless of what he (Farrell) actually says.
2. Knows what we think, regardless of what we actually say.

because he (Jose) is the only unbiased and pure-of-heart commentator on here whilst the rest of us are prejudiced, bigoted idiots.

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

We interrupt this broadcast to bring you a short information film:

Athywren
Athywren
7 years ago

Chemistry isn’t Physics – it’s just science.
BOOM!
Take that, Chemists! You thought you were cool, but I’ve proven you ain’t. DIMINISHED!

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

[M]illions of people … are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

You replace “genitally” in that sentence with “gently” or “generally” and it’s still goddamned creepy. And it’s not because of parents cuddling their kids. It’s the statement that parents are afraid to touch their children (because evil society), and that is repressing the children’s and the parent’s sexuality. Because parents would otherwise become sexual with their children? No, that is way creepy.

No child can consent to sex with an adult. When the adult is a parent? No, no, no, no.

Repeatitive stupidity:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TyrM7GxyzGg

katz
7 years ago

Take that, Chemists! You thought you were cool, but I’ve proven you ain’t.

*sniff* I’ll go cry now.

CassandraSays
7 years ago

Hey, Jose, if you’re going to stick around I’d particularly like to see you attempt to explain away this part.

are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves

How does it repress the sexuality of a parent to not be able to caress their children? Even if we agree to a totally non-sexual interpretation of caress that’s still pretty weird, to suggest that not being able to cuddle their kids is in some way repressing the sexuality of a parent.

Ally S
7 years ago

How does it repress the sexuality of a parent to not be able to caress their children? Even if we agree to a totally non-sexual interpretation of caress that’s still pretty weird, to suggest that not being able to cuddle their kids is in some way repressing the sexuality of a parent.

Also disturbing is the implication that not caressing (“generally” or “genitally”) a child leads to repressing hir sexuality. I mean, WTF?

kittehserf
7 years ago

In other words, I’m defending Farrell because you are distorting him.

In a word, bullshit.

He’s indefensible and I side-eye anyone who defends talk about how important it is for Daddy to “caress” his daughter so nobody’s sexuality is repressed.

He’s defending incest, however much you want to squirm and pretend he isn’t.

What’s your investment in defending him, eh? Why come to a months-old thread to say how nasty it is to point out what he said?

Viscaria
Viscaria
7 years ago

My reading of Farrell is highly influenced by my anti fucking child abuse bias. I’m sure if I would look at it from a neutral on child abuse perspective, I would see no problem with him suggesting that not touching your kids is a repression of their/your own sexuality.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

RE: Jose

– “incest” is not really synonymous with rape,

Dude. Pedophilic incest was a multigenerational thing in my family. Do you really want to go head-to-head with me over the abusive dynamics therein? What’s your credentials?

Also, it’s funny you mention Toy Soldier. I’ve lost it in the depths of comments here, but he actually MOCKED me over being raped, and I’m a male rape survivor too. I didn’t even KNOW the guy. So funny how you should say, “tell me who you’re with, and I’ll tell you who you are.” THAT’S why I think he’s an asshole, nothing to do with his life story. He doesn’t give a shit about male rape survivors.

Ally S
7 years ago

LBT, if you don’t mind telling me, how did TS mock you? I’m just curious because always tries to project this image of being The One True Savior For Male Victims. The fact that he mocked your experience(s) is disgusting, and I’m sorry he was like that.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

RE: Ally

Let me look it up. It was quite a while ago, and I mostly just remember getting unpleasantly surprised and upset because all I knew about Toy Soldier was that he was a male rape survivor, so I didn’t expect mockery from HIM. Stupid me.

ostara321
ostara321
7 years ago

“…are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”
Because people will become afraid of their feelings with other people, sexual or not, and kids will grow emotionally detached and will also be afraid of their feelings. He talked about sexuality because this was a sexuality article and he wanted to center around sexuality.

Um, yeah, I’m going to go ahead and be the frigid bitch feminist who says I’d prefer people erred on the side of caution when it comes to touching children. Because children when with adults are almost always on the lower end of the power differential, they may not always feel they can say no to unwanted touching (even non-sexual touching). Children who feel pressured to accept non-sexual touching are that much more likely to feel pressured to accept sexual touching.

It’s called grooming, sir. And it’s a part of the larger rape culture that hurts men who are raped as well.

Also

“incest” is not really synonymous with rape, but some of those cases he reported are definitely rape, don’t get me wrong

Yeah…. See above. I’m again, going to go ahead and be a frigid bitch feminist who says it’s probably not a bad thing in the case of incest to err on the side of caution and assume that most (if not all) incestuous relationships contain a power differential that is used/abused and are thus coercive by nature, at best.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/monkey-see-monkey-do/#more-6684

Ta-da! Here it is. It links back to when I got harassed (by a woman, no less) about whether I was truly raped or not. At this point, I’d never spoken to Toy Soldier, knew very little about him except that he claimed to care about the rape of men and boys, but instead, he lorded over how “what goes around comes around” and seemed to take my getting trolled as something fun and amusing.

So yeah, advocate for male survivors of rape, my ass. Only when they fit with his ideology. I mean, I think he’s an asshole, but I would never, EVER question his abuse history, and I’d NEVER feel anything but sorry that he had to go through it too.

Dammit, now I’m angry.

katz
7 years ago

LBT: Ugh, I didn’t remember that happened on his blog. It would have been bad enough if it happened in the comments.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

RE: katz

Yeah, like, I’d’ve EXPECTED it in the comments. I come to Manboobz in part so I can funnel all the trolls into a convenient tunnel I can take on at my convenience. But for this guy who CLAIMS to care about male survivors, dude sure got schadenfreude out of me. *eyeroll*

CassandraSays
7 years ago

My problem with Toy Soldier is that he interprets every single incident in which people are rude to him, or don’t like him, or just disagree with him on anything, as a sign that they’re doing so BECAUSE he was raped by his aunt. Which is ridiculous enough that saying that he’s choosing to interpret things that way deliberately, and for a political purpose, is actually the most charitable perspective.

Ally S
7 years ago

What the fuck? I’m sorry for reminding you of that, LBT. I hate him 10 times more than I used to.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

Yeah, and he’s full of shit. I’m a gay trans man, raped by a straight cis man. I don’t fit into his ideology, which seems intently focused on anti-feminist thought, and that feminism is responsible for women raping boys, or that destroying feminism will prevent further rapes from happening.

It shows a gross misunderstanding of rape dynamics, and an overgeneralization of HIS rape to all rapes inflicted upon men and boys. And since I’m a feminist, therefore ‘the enemy,’ apparently he sees it as totally kosher to laugh when I got interrogated by a woman about the circumstances of my rape. (As though I hadn’t experienced that plenty of times ALREADY. Assholes about rape come in all sorts of genders.) Because ahahaha, it meant I was getting what was coming to me! That’s what I get for being a feminist!

*shakes head* Again, this is why I laugh whenever anyone tries to claim the MRM cares about the rapes of men and boys. The moment you step out of line, they are totally okay with seeing you go down in flames. No thanks, guys.

Ally S
7 years ago

My problem with Toy Soldier is that he interprets every single incident in which people are rude to him, or don’t like him, or just disagree with him on anything, as a sign that they’re doing so BECAUSE he was raped by his aunt. Which is ridiculous enough that saying that he’s choosing to interpret things that way deliberately, and for a political purpose, is actually the most charitable perspective.

No wonder he’s such good friends with Tamen.

kittehserf
7 years ago

TS seems to be assuming everyone in the world knows he was raped at all, let alone raped by his aunt. Amazing how everyone’s a mind-reader.

LBT, would I be right in guessing he’s a trans*phobic little shit as well as every other sort of little shit?

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

RE: Kittehs

Honestly? Don’t know, don’t care. Guy hasn’t said anything to that effect as far as I know, so for all I know he just thinks I’ve got my head up my ass.

Man, it’s a weird sensation to be GRATEFUL to a guy for that.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Fair enough! I was theorising on why he was being such a scuzzbucket, but he’s a scuzzbucket in general so doesn’t really need a specific reason. Slimy little turd that he is.

1 8 9 10