Regular readers of this blog, for better or worse, know one thing that makes “Men’s Human Rights Activist” Paul Elam’s penis happy: The prospect of harassing feminists. He is, after all, the man who wrote of one feminist that “that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.”
Now Mr. Elam has given us a rather more complete account of what it is that pleases his penis. I’m not sure there was any great demand for this information, but he has chosen to release it, and so here we are.
In a post with the tasteful title “on tits, ass and fucktards,” Elam informs the world that he is in fact a fan of the first two items in this list – that is, tits and ass. He is also, he goes on to explain, a lover of
Sorry, I have to stop for a moment to remind you that you are about to read about things that give Paul Elam — yes THAT Paul Elam — a boner.
I will not think any less of you if you stop reading right here.
If you are ready and willing to continue, here we go:
I like well-formed thighs that lead up to the promise land, and smooth knees above shapely calves. Of course, all that combined with a woman’s pretty face is a crowning glory; full lips that promise supple kisses and great blow jobs, clear eyes and unblemished skin. All this combines to make a woman utterly fuckable, and visually that is what I like most of all. I like to look at women that are little fuckmuffins.
Yes, he actually wrote all that, attached his name to it, and posted it for other people to see.
But as much as Elam likes to look at “little fuckmuffins” he does not actually seem to like most of them very much.
After roughly 150 words devoted mostly to cataloguing his favorite female body parts, Elam evidently runs out of nice things to say about women, and so he returns again to his favorite pastime, devoting the bulk of the post to a rant explaining how much he hates “feminist fucktards,” traditionalist women, and women with Facebook accounts.
While happy enough with “fuckmuffins [who] are sexually liberated and adventurous” and who “like to please and be pleased,” Elam informs the world that he feels no such love for all those awful “fuckmuffins” who “liv[e] life with prudish sticks up their asses made from the same wood that forms the chips on their shoulders.”
He’s also mighty pissed at all those who aren’t interested in hearing him expound at length on what his penis likes.
Of the now almost endless list of things that have grown annoyingly stupid and sanctimonious about feminism is the Victorianesque shaming of my sexual programming as a man. Even with the so called “sex positive” feminists, the most hypocritical assholes of them all, the only positive sexuality they embrace is that of women. To them, male sexuality, in all its glory, is something to be buried, controlled and allowed to surface only when it serves the sexual needs of some narcissistic, horny, self-absorbed little “sex positive” princess.
Unfortunately, more traditional-minded women aren’t much interested in hearing about his penis either. And for some reason they, like feminists, think that there might be some sort of connection between men and rape.
Who are those traditionalists? You will know them by their obsequious silence while feminists shame men for committing the scurrilous act of looking at women sexually. Or better yet, as they join in with their “men can stop rape” bedfellows to twist and distort the natural inclinations of young men with Puritan sexual guilt that marches in lockstep with the feminist hatred of male sexuality.
Elam stops for a moment to reassure his readers that despite all that stuff about “well-formed thighs” and blow-job lips he prefers Good Women to mere “fuckmuffins.”
Now, all that being said, is woman-as-fuckmuffin all I care about? Hardly. As a matter of fact, I would throw fuckmuffin to the curb faster than you can say “patriarchy” to spend time with a woman of good character and intelligence. I have learned in life that my dick has a healthy agenda for humanity, but not necessarily for me. So as my values have matured, so has my taste in women.
Heck, it turns out he actually sort of hates “fuckmuffin.” After all, he tells us,
fuckmuffin … is prone to act indignant when she feels sexualized (by the wrong guy). She can become so angry at being “objectified” that you can see her tits shake right through that tight sweater with the neckline that plunges to the vicinity of her toes.
And then he compares her to a bug:
Time and experience will lead [men] to understand that fuckmuffin should be regarded with same respect as you would afford a stinging insect.
Basically, he explains, the only problem with lustful young men who ogle women is that they haven’t learned to hate women enough quite yet. And so women shouldn’t complain when young guys stare at them. Or when they don’t. As far as I can figure it, he thinks women shouldn’t ever complain about anything.
Leave [young men] the fuck alone. There is nothing wrong with them. Nothing needs to be fixed. If you want to help a young man like that, just start encouraging him to connect the dots between fuckmuffin’s propensity to take her own picture and post it to Facebook four times a day and her ultimate tendency to make him miserable. Eventually he will get the connection. And if he doesn’t, maybe that makes him happy. Either way, it is none of your fucking business.
And so ends what’s probably the strangest work of erotica I think I’ve ever read.
Argenti, not being at all sarcastic, I am looking forward to the wall of comments. Your statistical takedowns are always educational!
This is a fake comment to take advantage of the “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” WordPress function. 😀
Okay, good night!
[include all issues of self-reporting here]
Ok, there’s just plain something odd here, in raw numbers, men claim to be victimized twice as often as they claim to perpetrate violence (all forms, from serious injury to “threw something that might’ve caused injury”) where’s women claim to be perpetrators twice as often as victims. My “what’s the effect of socialization on self-reporting” bells are ringing.
Option A is that women really engage in DV twice as often as men; option A.2 is that the type of violence is different (potentionally drastically so — punched in face versus threw a shoe); option B is that men underreport perpetrating violence, over report victimization, women underreport victimization, overreport perpetration, or some combination thereof.
Considering the reasons the CTS is bullshit, I’m guessing A.2 and B. But I’m not done yet, so conclusions shall wait.
Night cloudiah 🙂
Major math ahead, and yes, I’ll provide a simple version.
(I apologize for the binary gender language ahead, it’s an artifact of the data)
Ok, so women report statistically significant more violent relationships than men. In non-math that just means that a woman is more likely to be in a violent relationship than a man is. And women were more likely (to a statistically signifact degree) to report recipical violence. Dandy, it’s data, it’s got percents, and probabilities, and while I find p<.03 a bit high, hey, it’s there, and it is a valid p value (for social science anyways, be concerned if your doctor says the probability of side effects is less than 3%, cuz it’s more than 2%)
And that leads to my “blarg you little…” lies, damned lies, and statistics! That 70% bit? Note the lack of mention of statistical significance, or p value. It’s what researchers do when not including the numbers would be questioned by the publisher, they see it as unethical to omit it, etc — but the data is not significant. Or they’d say it was, and at what value.
At best, this omittion was sloppy, but I’ve done it (granted, I was undergrad) — you do it when you have to, or want to, include the numbers, but they aren’t statistically significant.
I’m only a third through the results section though, so maybe they’ll get back to it. (I’m just wary of typing much and changing tabs, the iPad likes to refresh when I do that and lose my fucking comment)
Fairly straight forward, and the holding is mine — frequency of violence perpetrated by men is the same in reciprocally violent relationships, as in non-reciprocally violent ones (in not stat speak, men are as likely to be violent when women are also violent, as when women are not violent). Contra that, women were more likely to be violent in reciprocally violent relationships (women were more likely to be in relationships where both partners were violent, than be sole perpetrators of violence).
Oh hey, that 70% before was actually not statistically significant! Moving along.
Higher levels of violence means frequency, I’m really not sure where they decided to reword that, but the measures are frequency = levels, injury = yes/no. So it has to be frequency which they said was low/medium/high scale…
So then, women were more likely to be violent more frequently if their partner was also violent than if only she was violent. As for injuries, the math we’ve all been waiting for, more likely when perpetrated by the man (whether or not the violence was reciprocal) and more likely if it was reciprocal (regardless who started it).
So…
Women less likely to be violent when the man isn’t (than men are when the woman isn’t).
Men, equally likely to be violent regardless whether she is.
Women, more likely to be violent reciprocally (liar liar pants on pick-and-choose-to-suit-my-goals fire)
Men, equally likely to be violent reciprocally or non-reciprocally.
Women, higher frequency of violence if he’s also violent.
Men, more likely to cause injury, regardless whether she’s also violent.
Reciprocal violence, more likely to cause injury, regardless who perforated it.
Things Argenti needs to check — frequency of violence by men in reciprocal vs non-reciprocal, who’s injured in reciprocal violence resulting in injury (both assumed non-significant as they weren’t mentioned)
“More importantly, we found that violence was perpetrated more frequently (by women only) and was more likely to result in injury when it was reciprocal as opposed to nonreciprocal.”
Do I need to comment on that? Epically simple version, in exactly zero ways are women more likely to cause injury in a violent relationship where only she’s violent.
Summary of the rest of the discussion (well, the first subsection):
Half of violent relationships are reciprocally violent, this type is more likely to result in injuries, regardless who perpetrates it, and in reciprocally violent relationships, women are violent with greater frequency than men.
Neither “don’t hit women” nor male reclutance to report hitting their partner accounts for this — sample setting may’ve caused them to find more “situational violence” than studies of severely injuries victims (well that makes sense, having a shoe thrown at you doesn’t usually get reported, not compared to broken bones and whatnot)
Also, regardless reciprocity, men where more likely to cause injury. And men a more likely to be injuries in recripocially violent relationships.
They say about three times in the discussion that women perpetrate more DV than man, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how they got that out of their data. Best guess is they mean the raw number of incidents — that half of violent relationships are recripocially violent, and women are violent more frequently in such relationships, so there are more incidents of women being violent towards men. Which is one thing, but to not explain how you got that conclusion and keep repeating it almost word for word? It’s a bit odd. Also, men are more likely to cause injury, men are just as likely to be violent regardless reciprocity, whereas women were only more violent in recripocially violent relationships (and even then, they say he’s more likely to be injured, but provide no indication is it’s significant, and explicitly include the “how bad the injury is isn’t within the realm of our data”)
I mean, yes, we shouldn’t be saying that women cannot perpetuate DV, or that it’s just plain harmless when they do, but outside reciprocally violent relationships, he’s more likely to injure her. And even within recripocially violent relationships, why no probabilities on whether he’s injured more frequently to statistically significant degrees?
Ok, that sounds like I’m a terrible person who’s all “who cares if men get injured more frequently in the type of relationship that makes up half of DV cases” but the numbers here are getting too small for law of large numbers. Like, the number of injuries in non-recripocial cases where 130~ for both male perpetrator and female perpetrator. Compared to the original sample, that isn’t very large. Weirdest part though is that the injury rate in reciprocal relationships, that thing we’re saying men are injured in more than women? There should be large enough numbers for statistics, but they provide probabilities on the former but not the later. It’s Very Weird.
“A meta-analysis of the reliability of the conflict tactics scale concluded that there is evidence of underreporting by both genders, and that underreporting may be greater for men, for more severe acts of IPV.”
You wait to the goddamned end of the discussion to pull “oh btw, we’re fundamentally using the worst measure of DV in history“?!?!
Yeah, I’m not touching that, my brain will explode in anger. *screams* ok, they actually managed to use a worse measure. I am amazed to learn that that’s actually possible.
I’ll give the actual questions in second, but seriously guys? Your big “women are as violent as men” is based on data that has absolutely no measure of how severe the injury is, and fails to include sexual assault, weapons, choking and burning?! So rape at gun point? Not included, had a shoe thrown at you? Included. Got a bruise, included. Needed a broken been set? Same statistical significance as that bruise.
I thought I hated the CTS, but at least it doesn’t exclude quite as much.
Argenti, you might be interested in this: http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/malevictims.pdf
The questions:
“How often in the past year have you threatened your partner with violence, pushed or shoved him/her, or thrown something at him/her that could hurt”
“How often in the past year have you slapped, hit, or kicked your partner”
So, “I threw a shoe and caused a bruise” = “I shoved someone down a flight of stairs and broke multiple bones”.
Have I mentioned that these scales are atrocious? Because yeah, they are. And rape isn’t included in the full CTS, forget this mess.
They do note that they may’ve failed to capture any sub-population too under the control of their partner to participate.
All bullshit aside though, women are more violent if, and only if, you count the raw number of incidents. With no factor for reciprocity, or number of relationships (that is, one woman throwing three million shoes at the same guy would count as three million incidents — not quite the same as “men a violent just as often in reciprocal versus non-reciprocal relationships”)
And I’m extra crisp about raw numbers, who remembers the dude who tried arguing with me that heart disease is more important than murders of trans* women (NB: rate’s higher of WoC)…because there just aren’t that many trans* women? Yeah, raw numbers are really shitty data.
Bt yes, men can be victims too, and we shouldn’t laugh at them when they are. But by all the gods do we need better measures!
One second on that Aaliyah, also, meep…trigger warning on my Secind to last paragraph above. Sorry that I ranted without warning.
Ok, I’m on page 3 of the PDF Aaliyah posted and:
1) read it
2) “The questions they raise are indeed troubling — but the questions they, themselves, ask
are far from clear. For example, does gender symmetry mean that women hit women as often as men hit women? Or does it mean that an equal number of men and women hit each other? Or does it refer to men’s and women’s motivations for such violence, or does it mean that the consequences of it are symmetrical? These questions are often lumped together in reviews of literature and “meta-analyses” (which review existing data sets).”
Can I hug their brains? Logic, it exists!
Ok, I realize this has become the all about me thread, but I need to comment on that PDF, and these measures in general.
“but 3.5% of women and only .4% of men said their partner threatened to use a gun”
I’ve had the wonderful pleasure of sitting there terrified while someone waves a gun around threatening to burn the house down and then kill himself with it (who wants to guess context? No, no prize, it’s too obvious) — versus getting slapped, pushed, kicked…by all means, come at me bro. Sorry, that was cliche, but the threat with a gun, not violence by most of these measures, is far more terrifying than being slapped, shoved, etc.
On a lighter note, I scared the crap of the gaslighting narcissist ex when he tried to shove me out of the house and I wiggled free and ducked under his arm. He really thought being twice my size would be an advantage in terms of scaring me, and I really don’t scare that easy.
Point here is that waving a gun around = scarier than being raped (yeah, even in hindsight, this comment is Jameson’s induced) = scarier than being slapped or shoved or kicked (or shoved into lockers, oh am I glad my middle school had lockers too small to shove someone into them!)
…can say in having a knife waved at me… (thanks though pecunium, now I have an idea wtf to do if GTFO isn’t viable should that ever occur, my life, it’s nothing if not interesting!)
Ok, back to the PDF! (You guys are killing me, I was hoping to finish rewatching the Criminal Minds episodes about Foyet)
In summary, Raven’s study was misconstrued, and while, in raw number of incidents, women may be violent towards men more than men are violent towards women, there are about a million things wrong with the method that study used, and you should read Aaliyah’s PDF to have those explained.
Most annoying being that he rapes her, she shoves him off equals she was non-reciprocally violent (dear gods do they need to include sexual violence!)
DERAIL!
Weeping angel kitties
Argenti, sorry…i don’t mean to minimise and I am so sorry if I did.
Raven: You did wave it away. You didn’t provide any evidence (new or otherwise) you just said, “nunh-unh!”.
And I conceded that there was contradictory evidence, but they were the exceptions to the general rule
You didn’t prove any general rule. Here’s the thing… you made the assertion; that means the burden of proof is on you. When challenged on your lack of proof you don’t get to say, “Is so!” and get credit.
As we say round these parts Show Your Work
(and yes, I see that you have changed nym… If I have the time I’m going to go back and see if there was argument in support, or just argument in common/parallel. i.e. was it sloppy, or sock).
Argenti: “How often in the past year have you threatened your partner with violence, pushed or shoved him/her, or thrown something at him/her that could hurt”
“How often in the past year have you slapped, hit, or kicked your partner”
So, “I threw a shoe and caused a bruise” = “I shoved someone down a flight of stairs and broke multiple bones”.
Not even. Note the use of the phrase, “could hurt”. So if she tosses a shoe, and misses, they count it the same as him grabbing her and causing a radial fracture.
That’s on top of the questions of self-reporting; i.e. can we know the men reported non-contact actions (e.g. a shoe which misses) as often as women did (and vice versa)? Given the data on injuries, I’m guessing not.
well i don’t know about you but i have never seen a woman with a sweater that has a neckline down to her toes. unless paul elam is looking at a woman wearing a really, really long cardigan with only one button way at the bottom. also, you can see a woman’s breasts in just about anything she wears.
i have also never seen tits shake, unless someone was actively trying to shake them or doing the twist. i have seen tits jiggle… but that’s a whole other deck of cards.
and i have never known a woman who would fuck someone calling her “fuckmuffin”. women are not turned on by the idea of being a baked good that is being fucked. i am thinking here that the only thing paul elam has ever fucked is a muffin.
Looking at Laight’s previous comments (esp. in the Aida Richards Thread), combined with this gem bemoaning the horror of Angry Harry I suspect some socking.
Argenti: Thanks for having the patience to slog through that study. They didn’t count weapons being waved around in a threatening fashion, or rape, as DV? That’s… utterly inane.
Oh, for a particularly lovely example of the proper use of snark….
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/04/commonsensesafety.jpg
Pecunium — I included the shoe bruising so they’d both count as “yes, an injury was caused”, because extra stupid. Fuck *gives self a once over* oh about 3 sets of cat scratches, a lovely bruise, a toe that still hurts to walk on it, and my fucking finger is still not healed…all but the cat scratches are me being a klutz — totally the same as 6 broken bones (lol, in separate incidents, or they’d be one count of “yes, injuries occurred”)
BigMomma — no worries, I was babbling drunk and KITTIES! Yeah, those are always a welcome distraction even if I’m not just babbling 🙂
In totally random things, any guesses why exactly one leaf on my African violet is turning, well, violet? The flowers are violet, not the leaves, wtf gives?! (It’s fine otherwise, so I’m assuming sunburn and rotated it)
“i am thinking here that the only thing paul elam has ever fucked is a muffin.”
Thank you, cherabushka, I didn’t really need that cereal after all …
“i am thinking here that the only thing paul elam has ever fucked is a muffin.”
It’s a little too close to virgin shaming for me… Who or what Paulie has had sex with, or whether he’s had sex at all is irrelevant; the fact that he’s a Grade A misogynist, cheerleader for anti-woman violence, and an all-around asshat? Totally relevant.
@argenti aertheri
O_O bad data taking bad.
As if that’s a bad thing 😉 Though, I confess, I did have a hard time following the math, because me and math are not friends.