Categories
advocacy of violence attention seeking creepy domestic violence doubling down douchebaggery eek tattoos emotional abuse empathy deficit entitled babies gaslighting hamstering matt forney men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA reactionary bullshit red pill self-congratulation sexual abuse sexual exploitation

Attention-seeking manosphere douchebag offers how-to guide for abusive boyfriends

Not the model for a happy and successful relationship
Not the model for a happy and successful relationship

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.

468 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marie
10 years ago

@marinaliteyears

Thanks 🙂 Glad the brainbleach was helpful.

Sam
Sam
10 years ago

Kiwi girl. Forgive me. 90% of the adults who died were women. I do find it interesting how you justified the gullibility of the Jonestown women by pointing out that they were mostly women of color. Kind of shows why black women feel that white feminism is racist. Why then were there not more black men dead?

Sam
Sam
10 years ago

Augzillary, Jim Jones was bisexual and had sexual relations with some of the men.

Marie
10 years ago

So, maybe I missed something, but why the fuck are we talking about who Jim Jones fucked?

Kim
Kim
10 years ago

Most of what he wrote is correct and very useful for bringing a woman to heel. I figured this stuff out in High School, and had a high fashion model throwing herself at my feet for years.

If you want to utterly dominate a woman, his advice is spot on.

Wanting to utterly dominate anyone makes you an arsehole. Being so smug about being an arsehole makes you especially repellent.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

Most of what he wrote is correct and very useful for bringing a woman to heel. I figured this stuff out in High School, and had a high fashion model throwing herself at my feet for years.

Yeah, right. A “high fashion model throwing herself at my feet.” Cool story, bro.

Marie
10 years ago

@auggz

@Marie, I brought up how his chosen leaders were all pretty white women. Apparently that’s not important at all because Jim Jones slept with men too.

Ah. Thanks for explaining.

sparky
sparky
10 years ago

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.

Sam: 1) Stay on topic; 2) Why don’t you stop beaten around the bush and just directly say what you’ve been implying, here?

catgirl
catgirl
10 years ago

Re gorney:
When I was peripherally involved in the manosphere (had my own blog but generally didn’t agree with their shit)I made him so angry he cussed me out in the comment section of a blog that is not a major or well-known blog. He projected lot of shit unto me based on a girl he knew and didn’t like. Most of his opinions regarding women are likely based on his interactions with a few.
There was one female blogger (no longer blogging) whom he did seem to approve of. She gained a lot of manosphere approval for deriding feminism while participating in amateur porn and other things she could do with relatively less judgment than in the past thanks to sex positive feminism. In other words, trashing feminism while milking it for all its benefits. I always got the sense that her posts deriding “female nature” was just her justifying her aberrant behaviors with misogyny (ie I scream at my boyfriend cuz im female)

Re rabbits: Dont people shave their rabbits to make yarn?

I heard really good reviews about this one yarn place in my area and it turned out to be a house with rabbits and goats. I didn’t go inside though, I was mildly sketched.

For a while I would commute to my summer job on the bus and there was a house with white rabbits relaxing outside it all the time. They were so cute.

Marie
10 years ago

@auggz

I don’t know :/ I haven’t seen enough of his comments.

Brooked
Brooked
10 years ago

Re:Jonestown
The armed Temple’s “Red Brigade”, who earlier that day shot a dozen people and killed five, including a US Congressman, had machine guns pointed at temple members to prevent them from escaping and to enforce the “mass suicide”. Some drank the infamous Kool-aid but others were thought to have been forcibly injected with poison.

A lot of fringey “conspiracy” websites seem bandy the 90% women statistic around.

FYI, Here’s a link to a San Diego State University website that seems to offer substantiated figures.
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=35666
“The Demographics of Jonestown”

We calculate that approximately 1020 members of Peoples Temple were living in Guyana as of 18 November 1978. We have identified 122 people who survived the tragedy, but this figure is rather fluid.

Almost twice as many females as males lived in Jonestown, which becomes significant when we look at leadership patterns in the community (below). Black females made up the largest group of residents of Jonestown (45%), with white females comprising 13%. Black males made up over one-fifth (23%), with white males making up a tenth, and the remainder falling in the Mixed or Other categories (Figure 2).

One hundred thirty-one children were under the age of ten; 234 were between the ages of 10 and 19; and 186 were in their 20s. This means that more than one-half of the residents were under thirty, and more than one-third were under twenty. While many teenagers worked in Jonestown to support the project, these figures nevertheless reveal a relatively large non-productive population. Two hundred eleven (211) people were sixty and older, with three-fourths of this segment being black females.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
10 years ago

@Brooked, thanks for the link, we can now bury into the death statistics by ethnicity/gender, and find that Sam still can’t do maths.

With respect to survival rates, by ethnicity and gender. For African-Americans, both male and female died as we would expect if there was no bias in death rate:

The proportion of blacks who died (69%) does not differ significantly from the proportion who lived in Guyana (68%). Figure 4 shows that almost half of those who died in Jonestown were black females (47%), corresponding to their presence in the community (45%), while black males also died at the same proportion as their presence (22%).

More African-American females died than African-American males, because there were *more African-American females present compared to males*. Once the base rates are taken into account, there are no gender differences in this population.

If you were a white male, you were more likely to survive the massacre:

The gender-race distribution shifts when we consider who survived the tragedy by either being in Georgetown, the capital, or by leaving Jonestown on 18 November (Figure 5). Only one-third of the 122 survivors were black females. About one-quarter of the survivors were black males, several of whom were members of the community’s basketball team, in Georgetown that day for a championship basketball game. In fact, almost a tenth (9%) of the male survivors belonged to the basketball team. Fourteen percent (14%) of the survivors were white females, but the percentage of white male survivors surpasses their presence in the community (19% as opposed to 10% overall).

So the survival rate for white males was twice the rate we would expect.

Again, Sam, fuck off.

cloudiah
10 years ago

And

Most of what he wrote is correct and very useful for bringing a woman to heel. I figured this stuff out in High School, and had a high fashion model throwing herself at my feet for years.

If you want to utterly dominate a woman, his advice is spot on.

Why would you want to utterly dominate someone and/or “bring them to heel,” unless you are an insecure loser who can’t maintain any kind of relationship with an equal? Just asking.

steampunked (@steampunked)

“I figured this stuff out in High School, and had a high fashion model throwing herself at my feet for years.”

I know what you mean! When I went to school at 1407 Graymalkin Lane, Salem Center (good old ‘”mutatis mutandis’!), Kurt Wagner was constantly throwing himself at my feet.

I used to say ‘Man, with those teleportation skills of yours, isn’t this a bit obvious?’

But he couldn’t get enough of me. I’d figured it out.

Old Reader
Old Reader
10 years ago

catgirl:
“Of the 24 MacArthur “genius” grants awarded last week, three went to gay men, a disproportionately high ratio seen by some as further evidence that gays are smarter than everyone else.”

– Sofia?

Old Reader
Old Reader
10 years ago

catgirl:
“Of the 24 MacArthur “genius” grants awarded last week, three went to gay men, a disproportionately high ratio seen by some as further evidence that gays are smarter than everyone else.”

– You mean Sofia?

(by the way, as you can tell, I accidentally copy and pasted something else above. lol.)

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
10 years ago

Yeah, right. A “high fashion model throwing herself at my feet.” Cool story, bro.

No, really. That’s where the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition kept landing whenever he got up from the toilet.

Old Reader
Old Reader
10 years ago

OK wait. Why can’t I copy and paste what I want to here?

Old Reader
Old Reader
10 years ago

One more try…

catgirl wrote:
“She gained a lot of manosphere approval for deriding feminism while participating in amateur porn and other things she could do with relatively less judgment than in the past thanks to sex positive feminism. In other words, trashing feminism while milking it for all its benefits.”

– You mean Sofia?

Brooked
Brooked
10 years ago

I’m not getting why Vest Guy thinks claiming to have been in an emotionally abusive relationship with “a high fashion model” counters our criticisms of Matt F’s pro-emotional abuse drool. Hopefully she’s moved on to better things while you’re here bragging about being an asshole.

Old Reader
Old Reader
10 years ago

docillusion:
“Most of what he wrote is correct and very useful for bringing a woman to heel. I figured this stuff out in High School, and had a high fashion model throwing herself at my feet for years.

If you want to utterly dominate a woman, his advice is spot on.”

– Nope. You did not figure out how to give women orgasms in High School.

And a woman will not go wild for you if you consistently fail in that department.

Forney’s claims of “purposely withholding orgasms” are nothing more than global announcements that he has very little, if any, experience in the sack, and he’s a lousy and unskilled lover who wouldn’t know a female orgasm if it bit him in the ass.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
10 years ago

Thinking again (!!!) on the whole “withholding orgasms” comment, being with a person who seems to avoid actions that have a higher probability of leading to one’s orgasm suggests a really bad and/or selfish lover.

This isn’t the sort of person I would be keen to continue having a sexual relationship with, let alone the other BS.

I would have thought this would be another “shoot yourself in the foot” tactic.

pecunium
10 years ago

buttboy: What I’m asking is, why this asshole in particular?

What makes you say he’s being particularly nasty to Forney: i.e. compare his specific language about other MRA/PUA sorts to Forney and show the comparative vituperuation (BTW, ever gonna back up your claims re online dating sites/treatment of women on the internet?).

I have no idea what you think I’m implying. I was asking an offhanded question, and everyone jumped all over it.

An “offhanded question” which implied there was some hidden agenda based on personal animus:you seem to have a particular hate-on for Matt Forney Do you two have a history or something?.

1 5 6 7 8 9 19