Apparently hoping to gin up another flood of hate-traffic to his blog, the attention-seeking human stain whose name rhymes with Batt Gorney has posted what is essentially a how-to guide for would-be abusive boyfriends under the charming title “How to Crush a Girl’s Self-Esteem.”
“Gorney” has conveniently arranged his suggestions into a numbered list, so let’s proceed through them one by one. (If you’re triggered by explicit discussions of psychological and physical abuse, please stop reading now.)
Step one, in “Gorney’s” not-so-unique 6-step-plan: “Constantly make her feel inadequate.”
And how do you do that? Easy as pie.
Every time she does something for you, find out what she did wrong and remind her of it. If you can’t find any problems, make some up.
And try some mild gaslighting while you’re at it.
[Y]ou should always sound calm and collected, like you’re talking about the weather. Denigrating her in a neutral-but-firm fashion will trip her submissiveness circuitry, making her think about how she can better serve you. And every time she reaches the goalposts, you move them, forcing her to play an eternal game of catch-up.
Like the salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross, you should Always Be Criticizing:
The concept is that if you criticize girls for minor mistakes, they’ll be less likely to commit major ones, as their mental energy is expended on dealing with your every complaint. For example, if you constantly critique the way she dresses, you won’t be arguing with her over whether she should get a tattoo or nose piercing to express her “individuality.”
In step 2, “Dominate her physically and sexually,”“Gorney” encourages his readers to violate their girlfriend’s personal and sexual boundaries at every chance.
Repeatedly violate her boundaries in small, petty ways, small enough that she’ll feel petty for complaining to you.
That’s right: abuse her strategically, and in such a way that she feels crazy for complaining about your abuse. “Gorney” is thinking like a true abuser.
For example, if you’re into anal sex and she’s not thrilled about it, the next time you take her from behind, stick your finger into her asshole. If she doesn’t like facials, cum in her hair instead. Lightly clasp your hand around her throat during sex like you’re going to choke her. (Do not actually choke her. That is dangerous.) Smack her on the behind when you’re out in public. The possibilities are endless.
The message you want to send her is simple: it’s not her body anymore.
This is all textbook abusive behavior.
“Gorney” follows this with a lovely bit of rationalization:
Most girls want you to dominate them anyway, but the rationalization hamster and their conscious minds prevent them from articulating this desire.
And then it’s back to more strategic abuse:
[I]f she lets you get away with minor violations of her boundaries, she’ll accede to your bigger demands later on, letting you mold her into the perfect plaything. If she doesn’t violently resist getting her anus fingered, a little more pressure and you’ll be full-on sodomizing her, grinning as she whimpers between each thrust.
Apparently the only sexual pleasure “Gorney” can imagine from anal sex is the pleasure he evidently gets from forcing women into it against their will.
Oh, and make sure you never give her the chance to say “no.”
Never ask her for anything, because asking is begging, and begging is contemptible.
Yep. Avoid the thorny issue of consent by never asking, and assuming that anything other than violent resistance is a “yes.”
Step 3 in “Gorney’s” program takes the creepiness into overdrive: “Isolate her from her friends and family.”
I don’t have much to say about this one; there’s a reason this is a favorite technique of cults and domestic abusers alike. Here’s Gorney’s take on it:
You need to be the primary emotional influence in her life, and you can’t do that if she’s leaning on anyone else for support. Gradually wean her from contact with anyone other than you.
What’s in it for you?
Not only will this increase her emotional dependence on you, it will make her more willing to please you; she’ll be less likely to wreck the relationship if she knows she’ll be all alone if it goes south.
For step 4, “Gorney” puts away the stick for a moment and pulls out a carrot, urging his readers to “Reward her at random intervals.”
But his emphasis is as much on the random as on the rewards; this is yet another gaslighting trick.
If you reward her every time she does good, she’ll see the pattern and use it to manipulate you. But if you reward her at random, her little hamster brain will run itself ragged trying to figure out your endgame.
Step 5 carries the slightly misleading title “Give her an emotional release.” In fact, what he suggests is that you physically “discipline” your girlfriend when she does “wrong” in your eyes.
By spanking a girl until she starts crying and sobbing, you give her an emotional release, turning her into a soppy puddle of goo and making her more inclined to serve you. As a friend of mine put it, all girls crave spankings; it’s their way of making up for Eve’s sin.
“Gorney” seems to be confusing consensual BDSM — which can bring bottoms or submissives intensely emotional releases — with domestic violence.
In step 6, “Gorney” tries to convince his readers — and himself — that it’s an abuser’s incredible sexual prowess, and not his manipulative abuse, that allows him to keep control over an abusive relationship.
You absolutely must have good cocksmanship if you want to ruin a girl’s self-esteem. Girls are enslaved to their vaginas as much as men are to their penises … Girls will do anything for a man who can fuck them good … .
Your dick is heroin, she’s the junkie and you’re the dealer.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
If you can make her cum on a regular basis, she’ll side with you over her parents, her friends, everyone.
Really? I hate to break it to you, dude, but “[m]aking her cum on a regular basis” is not really an extraordinary achievement, dude. It’s not a sign that you’re some sort of exceptional “cocksman” with a dick of pure heroin. It’s actually kind of, you know, basic? Expected? Also, most women can give themselves orgasms on a regular basis.
Additionally, don’t make her cum every time you have sex. Think like a dealer: you give the customer the pure stuff when you want to get them hooked, and when they’re addicted, you sell them shit that’s been cut with rat poison to increase your bottom line.
Somehow I don’t doubt that sex with guys like this would be a lot like taking drugs laced with rat poison.
[R]ationing out her orgasms at random will keep her on her toes trying to satisfy you.
Or send her off in search of someone who’s not such a complete asshole in bed?
“Gorney’s” advice is so over-the-top awful — it sometimes reads like he’s literally copied it from some textbook on domestic abuse — that it’s hard not to wonder if he just trolling. And to some degree, I’m sure he is. But he also clearly believes a lot of the shit he posts, and so I can only assume he believes, and possibly follows, at least some of his “advice” here.
This is a guy, after all, who admitted plainly to hitting a previous girlfriend, in a post in which he also declared that
Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.
Actually, that’s not true. In fact, there’s some research that suggests male chimps terrorize female chimps — and beat them with branches — to punish them for mating with other males. So men who abuse women are in fact the ones behaving like chimps.
Every time I think that the manosphere can’t sink any lower, something comes along and proves me wrong.
NOTE: I don’t want to give “Gorney” any traffic for his terrible post. But I also feel obligated to link to my source. So I have. I’ve just hidden the link randomly in the middle of the post.
Ceebarks,
Yeah, women aren’t visual.
I’ll just leave this here:
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/32300000/Tom-Hiddleston-tom-hiddleston-32358332-600-800.jpg
http://thats-normal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/benedict-vogue.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JbcW7ewATGo/TK0DObiOXuI/AAAAAAAAC0k/TdpAKwGe46Y/s1600/Being_Human_4.jpg
http://jobryantnz.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mishacollins.jpg
Yep, these guys don’t have throngs of screaming fans in part because they are really, really, ridiculously good looking or anything. Nope. Women just aren’t visual.
“(he once wrote off the entire female population of Portland, OR as physically subpar, a tragic loss to them, I am sure,)”
Well, for someone who lives in StereotypeLand, declaring every woman in an entire city to be ugly by definition is par for the course.
Argenti: The People’s Temple wasn’t a suicide cult, but they did follow the pattern of cultic suicide, “better to die on our terms than theirs”.
It’s not clear (even from the survivor’s accounts) if the children were, “forced” to drink the punch (which was a different brand of instant fruit-flavored drink, but not as visibly national as Kool-Aid, but I digress), that the children were, ‘forced’ to drink it.
One of the scary things is how well this had been planned out. Jones seems, sometime well before the events came to a head, to have come to the decision mass-suicide might “have” to be done. They had rehearsals, on a semi-regular basis.
So the kids were given their portions first (in part because they might not take it after), but they’d done all this before. They just lined up, and were given a cup, and taken away to drink it.
Some were given doses from syringes (the way babies are given medicine) but the number who “needed” that isn’t clear, and seems to have been small. And there is the question of what happened to the men who weren’t accounted for. Numbers as high as 300 have been bandied about, for the “paramilitary” types who “melted into the jungle. It’s alleged they waged campaigns against “The enemies of the temple” for years. At a guess, they had been melting away for awhile, which is really what triggered the chain of events.
I think Jones was afraid it was all coming undone before Congressman Ryan came to tell people they could leave. Letting people who were becoming restive see there was a way to get out, could have led to a mass exodus, and this triggered the final expression of his existential crisis.
The only reason he doesn’t get the sympathetic treatment most “murder/suicide” killers get is the number of people he took with himself.
Its interesting how you guys lump MRAs and PUAs together when Paual Elam is openly critical of PUAs. Can I lump you guys in with Radfems who claim all vaginal intercourse to automatically be non-consentual?
I think the general rule is that you can lump together two “mainstream” factions of a broader movement if it makes the discussion easier to follow. But it’s dishonest to lump a mainstream faction with a radical faction. (If you want to lump two radical factions, then you need to drill down a bit: Could they be both considered “mainstream” factions within a smaller radical sub-movement? Or are they in different sub-movements entirely?)
For example, if the topic is “Religious attitudes towards gay rights”, then it’s probably OK to lump Catholics and Protestants together. But it’s dishonest to lump Episcopalians with the Westboro Baptist Church.
My impression is that MRAs and PUAs are mainstream factions of the misogynistic movement. Manboobz is in the mainstream faction of the feminist movement, and the kind of radfems you’re describing are on the fringe of the fringe of the feminist movement. Would you disagree?
@Kiwi Girl
Small, but important, nitpick. The residents of Jonestown were Guyanese, so Black, not African American.
@pecunium
I think Argenti’s talking about the formation of the commune when zie says “And that doesn’t sound much like a suicide cult at all.”
I think it probably depends on what you’re discussing. I mean, both RadFem(s) and more mainstream feminism(s) agree that patriarchy is the root of many social ills, whereas I dunno, Christianity would say that original sin was – and so the way you deal with social ills depends on which theory you use, and thus contextually it would be okay to lump all feminisms together like you would lump all christianities. But outside of a few main tenants, one can’t say that all feminists believe X anymore than you can say all Christians believe X. You can also lump all women together when discussing generalities, (women can generally give birth, though this is obviously not always the case) but you can’t many absolute statements (all women want to give birth). In that sense, MRAs and PUAs are both developments of Red Pill theory, and so it’s reasonable to lump them together when discussing Red Pill theory, especially in comparison to something like feminism. Conversely, I wouldn’t say that arguing that PUA’s want of women to give them lots of sex is incongruous with MGTOW’s separatist tendencies is any more fair than saying that RadFem is incongruous with mainstream third wave feminism. That said, if an MRA is arguing both PUA slutting it up and MGTOW separatism (which I’m not saying is going on here, but I’m rambling off the top of my head) then pointing out the incongruities is just as valid as pointing out similar incongruous logic that might find in any kind of political theory – feminist or not.
@Shadow: I was relying on what I read, which said that he took the followers to Jonestown with him from the US, so I had assumed that they weren’t Guyanese. For example, I used this statistic
from this website: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7402/why_did_so_many_black_women_die_jonestown_at_35/
I accept my comment could be wrong, but it is due to the sources I used.
Shadow: Most of the residents of the Jonestown enclave had made an exodus from the US (and a lot of them had already made an interior exodus from the mid-west to San Francisco), so African American isn’t wrong.
WhatI was saying to Argenti is that I agreed with her. I didn’t call them a suicide cult. I said they engaged in cultic suicide. I never said Jonestown was founded as a place to go and kill themselves. When faced with what looked to be the forced dissolution/destruction of their cultic center/ideal (Jones said the US Army/CIA were going to come in and destroy them, and take their children away to be brainwashed) the opted (under what levels of compulsion we can’t know; but certainly under a lot of influence) to kill themselves, rather than be conquered/submit.
Normally I just roll my eyes and scoff at these poor fools you write about, but this one actually had my heart beating faster and my face flushed with anger because he was so fucking cavalier about describing the machinations similar to the ones employed by my ex-husband. The only solace I can take is that guys like this have miserable fucking lives entirely through their own faults, and that despite their most feeble attempts, dominating women isn’t enough of a salve to distract them from the bleakness of the emptiness of their souls.
Slightly to the side of this conversation, could people please let me know about use of the term “black” for African Americans? It’s an incredibly offensive term in NZ (and objectively wrong for a number of the ethnicities for whom it’s offensively applied to here) and so I don’t use the word. Specifically, is the word okay to use by people who aren’t POC (I fit in this category)?
<blockquote. I’m not sure what slimy garbage you’re trying to imply, don’t wanna know.
Based on this:
“One would think that a woman would get very much into kind, sensitive and caring men, but this is generally not the case.”
I’m going with “women would rather be abused than go out with a nice guy like meeeee!”
@Sam, docillusion, and everyone else pulling this shit: the fact that abuse works is neither in question nor the point. The issue is that people are advocating it, singing its praises, and generally acting like there’s nothing wrong with breaking down another human being for your own benefit. I can’t wait until you assholes drop dead.
@ignotiusomnium, that video is adorbs! I covet angora yarn because sheep and alpaca make me itch (I can knit with them, but have trouble wearing them, especially as scarves). But it’s so expensive!
THANK YOU. If your victim is polite and servile and attentive, it’s not because she wants you, it’s because she doesn’t want to get hit or yelled at again. This isn’t rocket science.
Does this mean it speaks the unspoken truth?
Mmm, lost of posters covered this already, and well. But, I dunno, Sam. What does the fact that Jim Jones was a man say? Lots and lots? Naw. It wouldn’t actually be fair to lump other men in with fucking Jim Jones — like, his behavior represented some type of norm among the white male demo? Please, that’s idiotic. That you’re trying to characterize all women as potential cult followers (and those women — and men — were Jones’ victims, least you fucking forget) is absurd. Actually, you should be kinda embarrassed for trying. But by all means, when in meatspace, try making the same point.
Forney’s list, wow, lots of wishful thinking on his part. His dick is like a drug, all women like to be spanked and orgasms can be rationed? Tee-hee. Haha. Also, he doesn’t know women orgasming while being completely alone is an actual thing, it would seem. We don’t have to wait for someone to give us orgasms — though, Freud would approve of such thinking.
::slow clap for Fibinachi, up the thread::
Oh yeah, totally got the “ALL women like jerks!” vibe from Sam. Trying to explain away the lack of lady friends, maybe? If you think all women are stupid irrational animals that deserve abuse they’ll most likely sense that and stay the hell away from you.
Re “cocksmanship”, I liked it better in the first volume of Fables. Prince Charming is a bit of an asshole, and while I’d still take him over Forney, I wouldn’t encourage any man to emulate his attitude toward women.
weirwoodtreehugger, I <3 Maru! That's one of my favorite videos, too – the bit with the tall, thin box is never not funny. See also:
@Kiki,
I had the exact same thought.
@Kittehs
I thought you guys called them “budgie smugglers”?
@David,
This is why I hate the claims that Forney (or Roosh or Elam) is “just trolling” or “it’s just clickbait” so we shouldn’t get upset about it. The author may not believe what he’s writing, but his commenters are lapping it up, and that’s terrifying.
I see Sam’s given up on pretending not to be a troll.
1) Who actually said that about PIV intercourse? Citation please?
2) Much like radfems, libfems, womanists et all can legitimately be grouped by their common interest in gender equality, MRAs, PUAs, MGTOW et al can be lumped together by their common interest in being mouth-frothing, misogynistic asshats. And since Paul Elam is not the pope of the MRM and there IS overlap in both ideology and talking points, I don’t see why one man’s disdain for another movement should affect how we perceive and treat them.
Yeah, it says he disproportionately targeted women.
Not caught up on the radfem related convo, but the Jonestown one…
“I think Argenti’s talking about the formation of the commune when zie says “And that doesn’t sound much like a suicide cult at all.””
Yep. (Hi Shadow!)
Pecunium, my dear, PRONOUNS! And by forced I was being polite instead of saying the kids didn’t commit suicide, they were murdered. Iirc, a bunch of the surviving men were off playing a basketball game or something. As to it falling apart already, yeah. From what I’ve seen/read the congressman was informed of the desire to leave by a covertly passed note that sounded fairly distressed — they were being held there whether they liked it or not.
Shadow // Kiwi Girl — it was a bit of both. A lot of people came from the US, but locals (Guyanese people) joined too.
——
Borg theme of the month is diversity, and if anyone wants to write about red flags, let me know! Also, in easy topics, personal narratives, we all have them, so share some.
“There was a mass exodus, like in Exodus!” — things said in my freshman dorm, about the dining hall
Hooray!
Why hello, fellow Tumblr user! I’m not that into Hiddles or Cumberbatch myself, but I know that makes me the odd person out on Tumblr.
@Kiwi Girl, “black” is usually acceptable here. I know people who don’t like “African American” because their families have been here for hundreds of years and they have no connection to Africa beyond the genetic. I also know some folks who, while descended from African slaves, came to the US by way of the Caribbean and thus think of themselves as more Caribbean than African. Of course, the usual rule applies: if someone asks you to call them x or not call them y, then do that.
Kiwi Girl: This is one of those situations where context matters, a lot. The language applied to Americans of African descent has been morphing for the last fifty years, in particular. At one time, “Black” was considered to be the preferred option, because it was better than “Colored”, and better yet than the common slurs, particularly the n-word.
As a result, many anti-racist movements took to using Black for their preferred nomenclature during the civil rights era–Black Power, the Black Panthers, and so on. As time has moved on, however, “African-American” has become a preferred term. This has partly been out of a push to stress that African-Americans are part of the fabric of the nation as much as anyone else, and deserve to be treated as fully equal citizens.
Unfortunately, it has several weaknesses. If I’m talking about people of African descent from Britain, for instance, I can’t exactly use “African-American”. I could use “African-Briton”, but unlike America, there’s no long history there of hyphenating based on ethnic/national background, so it strikes many as odd. It’s also imprecise in some conversations; Haitian- and Jamaican-Americans face unique stereotypes not applied to the community as a whole (even if the roots are just as racist), and there’s a number of sharp demographic differences between African Americans of slave-descent, and 1st-3rd-generation Americans originating from voluntary immigration (the latter are far more likely to follow the ‘typical’ immigrant, rather than bearing the burden of the history of slavery. So sometimes, you want ‘Black’ as an all-inclusive term; other times you want to be very specific.
If a speaker or writer is alternating between “Black” and “African-American”, this is usually not going to offend anyone, especially if African-American is used first. A speaker who ONLY uses “Black” is far more likely to get side-eyed, at the very least, though it won’t necessarily rise to the level of an a active slur, either.
@emilygoddess, that made me interested in looking up US ethnic categories, which got me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census
So “white” and “black” are actual US government ethnicity subcategories? I think there would be rioting in the streets in NZ if that happened here.
These answers are helpful to me professionally also, when I need to cite social science results from the US. I’ve always swallowed hard when I’ve read those terms in the peer reviewed literature, and then tried to construct sentences that don’t use those terms.
Thanks for the explanation Freemage, unfortunately our posts crossed in the cables, which is why I didn’t acknowledge yours in my first reply above.
(And I forgot to also say that I thought Fibinachi’s G&S tribute was excellently done.)
Oh, and per the ‘death tape’, the last person in Jonestown to advocate NOT committing mass suicide was a woman, who got shouted down by Jones and one of the other men in the group. So, you know, what does THAT say? (Nothing, really, other than people are people, and you never know who the ‘good ones’ are gonna be.)
Kiwi Girl — I just checked and the actual question was “black, African Am., negro” — iirc the last one was justified on the grounds that some older African Americans refer to themselves as such.
But freemage is right, there’s a big difference between someone whose family has been here for a century versus recent immigrants. Which, really, applies to all races/ethnicities. I’m third generation Italian f’ex, which isn’t gonna be the same as someone who moved here from Italy.
Sorta third gen? My great uncle was born in Italy, but his sisters were born here, so my mother is second gen but her cousins are first gen? That makes no sense. Particularly since the siblings are all fairly close in age (t’was the era before birth control after all, also, Roman Catholic)
It says a woman wanting to live is less important than men wanting her to die. Which is kinda important. That one I’d say you can generalize, given the DV stats that say the same thing over and over again. (Not comparing Jonestown to DV, other than in the sense that the male opinion overrode her desire to live)
if the guy weren’t so colossally fastidious about how he expects women to look (he once wrote off the entire female population of Portland, OR as physically subpar, a tragic loss to them, I am sure,) then I would not comment on how he looks.
It’s not like Forney is deformed, though. He’s just conventionally unattractive. (His pictures are actually flattering- if you’ve seen his youtube videos, they make him look even more unattractive).
The point is that there are a lot of people who look like Matt Forney. So when you laugh at him for being ugly, you’re laughing at them too.
If you’re okay with that, then fine. But you should know it.