For a certain subset of horrible men, there are few things more infuriating than the fact that women they find undesirable can turn down men for sex. For this upsets their primitive sense of justice: such women should be so grateful for any male attention, these men think, that turning down even the most boorish of men shouldn’t even be an option for them.
Consider the reactions of some of the regulars on date-rapey pickup guru Roosh V’s forum to the story of Josh and Mary on the dating site Plenty of Fish. One fine December evening, you see, Josh decided to try a little “direct game” on Mary.
That’s what the fellas on Roosh’s forum call it, anyway. The rest of us would call it sexual harassment.
Josh started off by asking Mary if she “wanted to be fuck buddies.” She said “nope,” and the conversation went downhill from there, with Josh sending a series of increasingly explicit comments to Mary, despite getting nothing but negative replies from her.
After eight messages from Josh, with the last one suggesting he would pay her $50 to “come over right now and swallow my load,” Mary turned the tables, noting that she’d been able to deduce his real identity from his PoF profile, and asking him if he wanted her to send screenshots of the chat to his mother and grandmother. He begged her not to.
As you may have already figured out, from the fact that we’re talking about this story in public, Mary did indeed pass along the screenshots, and posted them online.
Poetic justice? Not to the fellas on Roosh’s forum. Because, you see, Mary is … a fat chick.
While dismissing Josh as a “chode” with “atrocious game,” Scorpion saved most of his anger for the harassed woman:
Look how much she relishes not only shooting him down, but damaging his reputation with his own family. She’s positively intoxicated with her power. Simply spitting bad direct game is enough to unleash her vindictive fury.
“Bad direct game.” I’m pretty sure even Clarence Thomas would consider what Josh did sexual harassment.
At any point, she could have pressed a single button and blocked the man from communicating with her, but she didn’t. She didn’t because she enjoys the feeling of power she gets from receiving attention from guys like this and then brutally shooting them down. It makes her feel much hotter and more desirable than she actually is in real life. She’s not there to meet men; she’s there to virtually castrate them for her own amusement.
I’m guessing here, but I’m pretty sure that nowhere in Mary’s profile did she encourage the men of PoF to send her explicit sexual propositions out of the blue. And I’m pretty sure she didn’t hold a gun to Josh’s head and force him to send a half-dozen sexually explicit harassing messages to a woman he didn’t know.
Athlone McGinnis also relies heavily on euphemism when describing Josh’s appalling behavior:
I don’t think its primarily the revenge she’s after, its the validation. She is enjoying the power she has over this guy and wielding it brutally because it shows she can maintain standards despite her weight and the doubtless numerous confidence issues that stem from it. In blowing up this guy for being too direct in his evaluation of her sexuality, she affirms the value of her own sexuality.
Oh, so he was just being “direct in his evaluation of her sexuality.”
In short: “I am wanted, but I have standards and can choose. I have so much agency despite my weight that I can go as far as to punish those who approach me in a way I do not like rather than simply blocking them. I’m teaching them a lesson, because I’m valuable enough to provide such lessons.
So apparently in Mr. McGinnis’ world women who are fat aren’t supposed to have agency? They’re not supposed to be able to choose? They’re supposed to drop their panties to any guy who offers to be their fuck buddy or tells them to “suck my dick?”
Also, I’m a victim bravely standing up against online bullying/harassment-look at me!”
Yeah, actually, she is. Get used to it, guys, because you’re going to see a lot more of this in the future.
This isn’t just a laughing matter for her. She needs to be able to do this in order to feel worthwhile. She has to be able to show that even she is able to maintain standards and doesn’t have to settle for just any old guy asking for any old sexual favor simply because she resembles a beached manatee.
And it’s not a laughing matter for you either, is it? You’re actually angry that a woman said no to a sexual harasser — because you don’t find her attractive. And because Josh — from his picture, a conventionally attractive, non-fat fellow — did.
Mr. McGinnis, may a fat person sit on your dreams, and crush them.
Wow… misery is still around? That’s rather impressive. Guess I’ll have to catch up in order to jump in… Seems like the convo’s pretty much in the same state as before though.
I said “I am going to have my master in security”, I’m starting next week barring any unforeseen circumstances.
Nothing new, just more of the same wanking, and it’s now solo wanking since the partner in tedium was put on moderation.
Misery: you left that important part out.
You really should stop digging. Learning the First Rule of Holes will serve you well.
ffs, misery, dig that damn hole till you reach the mantel and be done with it. Your ability to miss the point over and over and over again is incredible.
Misery: Aren’t we off track again? Wasn’t it last page that everyone agreed on the usefulness of broader awareness of red flags? (education is a security measure)
In case you hadn’t noticed, you managed to make this discussion about you. So looking at the merits of your credibility (some of which you used in an appeal to authority, what with your pursuing a degree in “SECURITY”being how you tried to establish your bona fides), is on topic.
Moreover, this is a digressive forum, and you make some tangential points which people have asked you to clarify.
Why don’t you want to clarify them? Is it that you can’t? That you made shit up, and don’t have the means to defend your position?
@katz, I followed two courses at university and I did a lot of reading on the topic independent of the courses.
Oh, I’m impressed. I’ve taught courses on several security subjects (both personal, and institutional). I’ve done real world Threat Value Assessments for Army Installations overseas. I’ve been briefed on all sorts of threats (from those related to elictitations for information from Foreign Intelligence Services, to reducing one’s target potential to terrorists (which focus changed after 11 Sep. 2001), to giving weekend safety briefing to soldiers going on pass.
So, tell me, in your wide reading, what is the Academic Consensus in the Security Discipline on the subject of rape prevention.
@hellkell, I don’t know why you are acting surprised, I literally said that I followed ‘some courses’ several pages ago.
And presented the, pursuing a masters’s degree as some sort of greater expertise than anyone here: @hellkell, I’m going to have my master in security, please keep up with the real world.
Nope, nothing dismissive in that. No implication that people who disagree with you have no idea what they are talking about.
The reason I brought in the Security stuff is that I literally don’t see the harm in mentioning that you can evaluate my type of suggestions using the concepts from that field.
And the only place any claim to the “concepts from that field” can be made is… your unsupported word.
So you implied that you were well-versed in the discipline, and that from that level of expertise you have insights we ought to consider. Which insights turn out to be what you recall from, “a couple of courses.”
And you think we are finding you lacking in credibility is because you cite Yudkowksy.
As I said, that’s just icing on the cake.
Watch out, Aussie commenters, looks like misery is going to keep digging till the tunnel comes out the other side in Sydney.
This is still going on?
Has anyone made a joke about misery loving company yet? If not, why not?
Ninja’d by hellkell.
This is the second time in recent weeks that we’ve had a topic where a first-time poster has done this kind of thing. I feel kind of sorry for them in a way. I can imagine them lurking and then something comes up in a thread which they feel they know something about. And their puppy-dog ears prick up and they get hugely excited at the idea of finally being able produce a really good comment and impress all the regulars with their intelligence and knowledge. There is frantic typing and then that ages-long wait while the comment goes through moderation. Their wonderful first comment appears. And then, amazingly, instead of being hailed for their wit and insight, they’re smacked on the nose like a rolled-up newspaper and told that they’ve just shat on the thread.
So I feel kind of sorry for them, kind of.
At least until they prove unable to re-think their shit and instead just start rolling in it.
^ “with” not “like”. Bummocks!
And here I was hoping zie’d just burn up in the mantel’s magma.
I read that as “…burn up in the mantel’s mangina.” LOL!
Too bad misery’s not a first time poster. Up until now they seemed to be here in good faith.
That still leaves your authority on the subject at zilch.
In other news, Joe Francis (Girls Gone Wild douchecanoe) is going to be spending 270 days in county jail.
@Hellkell (and everyone else) Ok, I admit it, I have the short-term memory of a goldfish and a real problem with names. It’s embarrassing. Sorry. )-:
You know, though, I still lurk at times when I’m not sure I have anything to add to the conversation other than “hi guys” or “lol”. And there have been times where I wasn’t sure if a comment I did post would be received well because I wasn’t sure if I was expressing what I meant well enough. Yet, it’s never seemed to have happened. Generally (and by generally I mean, from everything I’ve seen), people here are pretty good at judging someone’s character by zir comments. If someone seems to be a good kind of person, but misguided, that person is corrected. If that person apologizes and acknowledges zie did wrong, the community here is pretty forgiving. If, however, that person turns out to be an asshat, zie is treated accordingly. The fact that misery has yet to apologize and is still trying to insist on zir “rightness” despite having insulted the whole community here tells me all I need to know about zir character. Misery is a miserable asshole.
No, but when there was that picture of the dressed-up dogs having tea I considered making a “pitty party” joke.
>>>@CassandraSays, you mean your question about why I’m debating this issue? I don’t have a reason
The most transparent lie of them all.
Titianblue: nothing to apologize for that comment was excellent.
(old topic)
Oh man, I really liked that “Straw Vulcan” link. It summed up a lot of what I really hate about culture’s treatment of “logical” and “rational,” or even “scientific,” but couldn’t quite put into words.
@CassandraSays, you mean your question about why I’m debating this issue? I don’t have a reason
Then why should we give a fuck?
I mean it. You “don’t have a reason”, but thought it was important enough to chase me down, and hijack my personal blog to get me to ask you to explain yourself to me.
And I’m supposed to believe it’s all a purely intellectual exercise, something you don’t have any “reason” to be doing.
Get real.
Well, I’ve been joined under the duvet by kitten Brond who tells me it’s past our bedtime. Good night, folks.