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.
“I hope he is continuously vomited upon by dyspeptic llamas who follow him and chew on his hair, as he (barefoot) tries to navigate a dark room filled with LEGOs. And when he finally gets out of that room, he finds out that all of his bedsheets and carpets have been replaced with slime mold. And then he discovers that he has to repeatedly undergo nasogastric intubations for medical reasons, which are not painful but are VERY UNPLEASANT.”
Dyspeptic llamas, legos, slime mold, nasogastric intubations. Wow- got all of the essential bases covered there. I’m impressed!
Bittersweet, thanks for that brain bleach. It was adorable beyond measure, which is kind of what I needed, there.
Never been in a relationship like this, but I’ve seen far too much of the aftermath. It is ugly; so damned ugly. I generally don’t swear online or in person, but there’s just no other adjective that properly emphasizes how nasty this type of nonsense is.
I’d say I’d love to go out and shave bald and get 80 tattoos in order to repel scum like this guy, but that’d be letting him influence me…
So, instead, I’m going to go do something worthwhile with my time: hang out with my friends who treat me as a person, regardless of our respective genders; do some stats; study; get paid to do a job I love… and not paid to do a volunteer job I love even more.
Some of my friends are the most awesome guys ever, and they introduced me to this lovely bit of brain bleach… since I still needed more! Do you need more?
http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2013/11/12/baby-rhino-playing-in-the-rain-video/
@ buttboy
“He comes out with uncharacteristically venomous language whenever Forney’s the subject.”
I’m having trouble finding venomous language in David’s post. Could you quote some examples of what you mean?
Why is using venomous language towards pro-abuse assholes a bad thing?
Jesus.
What I’m asking is, why this asshole in particular?
Because Forney’s a particularly scuzzy scumbag.
What you’re implying is particularly juvenile and boring. Run out of troll-fuel, already?
I’m having trouble finding venomous language in David’s post. Could you quote some examples of what you mean?
“attention-seeking human stain”
But it’s not just this post, it’s all of them:
“deeply terrible person”
“the despicable Matt Forney”
“the odious Matt Forney”
Etc. It’s not about whether Forney deserves it. He probably does. I just don’t see such strong language directed toward the other regular characters.
My emotionally manipulative asshole of an ex was a ‘nice guy’ who could come off as super caring whenever he wanted. When I finally realized it was all part of a facade I got the fuck out of there. I was lucky that he wasn’t doing it ‘on purpose’ in that he wasn’t plotting against me (like this article suggests), but even though I figured out what was going on doesn’t mean it didn’t do a fuck ton of damage. Someone who appears to be kind, sensitive, and caring, unfortunately, can also be an abusive prick.
3.5 billion women in the world and you think you know what women “generally” like? As if we’re some sort of monolith?
Another citation fucking needed. All you’re doing is a mealy-mouthed defence of abuse.
Bullshit.
What you’re implying is particularly juvenile and boring. Run out of troll-fuel, already?
I have no idea what you think I’m implying. I was asking an offhanded question, and everyone jumped all over it.
kittehserf – Oh, Christ, you’re right. Do we have another MRAL infection?
“Probably.”
Congratulations, you’ve just shown in one word that you’re a misogynist, not that I had any doubt anyway.
I wonder why feminists hate a man who has engaged in vile rape apologia and explicit advocacy of domestic violence against women. I just don’t understand!!
seraph – him or one of his kind, I reckon.
Sam – you’ll need to cite evidence over and above ‘everyone says’. I say this as someone who recently had reason to research ‘dole bludgers’ – people in my country who claim benefits fraudulently. It turned out that while everyone believed dole bludgers were the vast majority of recipients, evidence from multiple inquiries pointed the number of non-compliant recipients at sub 1% of the people on benefits.
AND that percentage included everyone who had filled out a form incorrectly. The actual number of cheats was so miniscule it was determined it was vastly more inefficient financially to pursue them than ignore them.
So please, cite me some rigorous evidence about how women (and only women) seek out abusers in vast numbers over non-abusive men. Evidence based science published in a peer-reviewed magazine not funded by a conservative think tank, preferably.
Also explain how the majority of women in female-male relationships are in an abusive relationship. I work in an area where I evaluate a lot of social behaviour, but mysteriously, the evidence does not show this?
After that, I’d like to see what you think the percentage of abusive men is in the community – it must be more than fifty percent of male partners in heterosexual relationships, right, for women to ‘generally’ avoid decent men?
TLDR: I don’t think there are as many violent males as you seem to.
Sam, it is absurd to say that women “generally” like to be abused. There are some women who have grown up in abusive households or have horrible self esteem for some other reason. Abusive men are drawn to women they know they can abuse. They are not drawn to women who would ever tolerate.
Just because you have a radar for vulnerable women doesn’t mean that’s how all women are. It does mean you’re an asshole.
steampunked – am I right in thinking you’re a fellow Aussie? 🙂
Oh, caught up with conversation thread.
Since you are wondering, dearest *coughs* ‘buttboy69’…
I’ve noticed that David consistently tends to use venomous language towards any characters he catches actively advocating abusive behavior. As for why he doesn’t harshly reprimand every abuse advocate on the interwebs…
Don’t try to pretend this character is a special martyr. Forney is really just disgusting… so disgusting language is the only type to adequately describe the multiple facets of his online persona.
I’m normally all for free speech. Even when it’s speech I hate. That being said, if somebody is ever arrested for domestic violence and he cites this asshat’s blog as his inspiration, Forney should be arrested for inciting violence. This is just disgusting.
@ buttboy
Thanks… but I don’t see that language as especially harsh. I’ve seen similar things in similarly horrible posts.
“you’ve managed to define a new low in shitty online pervery”
“the reactionay PUA douchecanoe”
“what he says makes no fucking sense”
I mean, this is a blog for mocking misogynists, and yeah, some draw more ire than others, but I don’t think it’s as skewed as ‘why are we all picking on poor Matt?’.
It’s just the law of returns, IMHO.
@Sam
Piss off, you dick. It’s nobody’s fault that they got abused. That lies with the person actually doing the abuse, shithead.
Oh, now trolly’s doing his JAQing off line. How original.
buttboy: Nice try, but no. Your words:
Or perhaps you’d like to explain what you meant by “history?”
No one said anything about anyone “liking” anything. I discussed bow many women respond and many respond in ways favorable to the manipulator. You can’t get more manipulative and abusive than Jim Jones. 90% of the deaths at Jonestown were women.
“Or perhaps you’d like to explain what you meant by “history?””
I’m writing elaborate fan-fic in my brain as this conversation develops…
Yeah, because why would any man be disgusted by another man advocating abuse and rape? There must be a history there.
Maybe it’s that David has a history of being a decent person, hmmm?