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.
Sam: Never said it wasn’t abusive. Just that it works and it says a lot. One would think that a woman would get very much into kind, sensitive and caring men, but this is generally not the case.
Gee… abuse works; which is why abusers promote it. It’s not a function of women, it’s a function of people. There are men who are abused by it too (sometimes by men, sometimes by women; just as there are women who abuse other women with these sorts of methods).
Lots of parents do things like this to their kids. Some of them are simple aspects of operant conditioning; and, absent context, neutral, i.e. they can be used for good or ill.
But abusers are like rapists, you can think someone is kind, and caring, and all that jazz, but they are setting you up for the kill.
You can’t get more manipulative and abusive than Jim Jones. 90% of the deaths at Jonestown were women.
This is not true. 276 of the 909 people who died in the mass-suicide were children. There were more than 100 men in the group that joined the agricultural collective in Guyana.
Again, you are confusing what happens to people when they are manipulated with something which “happens to women”.
Even if you subtract them from the total (and so get to a bit less than six hundred adults) there were more than 300 men in the compound, which means it was more like 60 percent women (because not all the people who were in Jonestown died… the number of survivors varies from 137-300+.
But you are also pretending something as structured as Jonestown, and not like this list of tools, is somehow equivalent.
Matt Forney has no idea what a man is. Whatever it is, he’s afraid he isn’t one.
The traditionally manly men I know – woodsmen, welders, Marines, carpenters – are kind, respectful and loving towards women, gentle, full of integrity. Strength can afford to be kind.
Buttboy, my “history” with Forney is that I have a history of reading his horrible shit. My tone may be nastier with him than with a lot of the people I write about, largely because the stuff he writes is worse. Some of the people I write about make dumb misogynistic comments; Forney writes how-to guides to abuse.
So? All the survivors who challenged his shit and got out before the Kool-Aid drinking were women, also. Your thesis is invalid.
There are so many internet Adonis’ who claim to be shagging supermodels and other 10’s. If they’re so desirable, why are they taking the time to post her instead of sexing all the ladies that are themselves at their feet?
Cool story, bro. >yawwwwn< But why would any man want to dominate women, instead of just accepting them as they come? Unless, of course, he's a total piece of shit?
Ewps…just reread my earlier comment. Some survivors were male. Given that the church membership was overwhelmingly female, however (and this by Jim Jones’s own design), it’s not saying much. Women aren’t just inherently “into” being abused, as Sam seems to think. Abusers simply pick out the most vulnerable, and victimize them. Surprise, surprise.
@steampunked & Vest Guy
See, that’s a cool story! Pro Tip for Vest Guy: You got to bring more zing, simply mentioning a weed smoking fashion model isn’t going to win over today’s sophisticated consumers.
(Aaaand THIS will teach me to post while tired. G’night.)
Presumably anyone unlucky enough to date Matt F is going to learn he has a blog and go check it out. So either Matt F only dates racist women well-versed in the Manosphere’s inanities who think his stuff is a chuckle-fest or he has some really awkward conversations. I’m not sure how any relationship would go forward after women reads things like, “you absolutely must have good cocksmanship if you want to ruin a girl’s self-esteem.”
Bender sums up my feelings about this pretty well
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YnJ519Mfv8&w=420&h=315%5D
Sorry, how do I post youtube videos in comments?
Just copy the “share this” code on youtube and paste it here. No need for any extra codes. 🙂
Okay let’s try some Chimp related brain bleach
http://youtu.be/w4c-mJ1DR24
I haven’t finished reading all the comments yet but I remember reading a while ago that most women do not orgasm through intercourse. It was statistically 3 out of 4 women never actually orgasm through intercourse (but this is a BIG secret so don’t tell anyone lol). That’s not the same as not enjoying it. Of course not. But to say that his ‘penis’ is like ‘heroin’ for women, especially if he seriously expects that to work with any given woman or the majority of women, is ridiculous.
Anyway this is just another loser revenge fantasy. Does he really think that she’s not going to question him though out all of this? Not once? If someone only criticized you no matter what you did for example, what would you think? You might wonder if there’s anything you’re doing wrong at some point, sure. But what would stop you from considering where the hell he is coming from? This never occurs to these guys. That’s how you know there is no interaction with women. Sad.
Every time PUAs or MRAs talk about sex it’s obvious that they have no idea how female sexuality works at all. It’s like watching someone who’s never taken physics or engineering trying to describe how planes work.
Those clowns don’t even know how male bodies work; the odds of them understanding women’s are infinitesimal.
For the bonus round, buy my airplane repair manual! Only $99, and it’s guaranteed to get your plane off the ground. If it doesn’t work, don’t blame the manual, this just means that the plane is defective.
“But why would any man want to dominate women, instead of just accepting them as they come? ”
– Because they aren’t coming.
“Presumably anyone unlucky enough to date Matt F is going to learn he has a blog and go check it out. So either Matt F only dates racist women well-versed in the Manosphere’s inanities who think his stuff is a chuckle-fest or he has some really awkward conversations. ”
– He’s not dating. Period.
I gotta admit, this post really shook me up. Thanks for putting the TW in there because I actually should’ve heeded it. Curiosity and cats and so forth.
Sorry Anonymous I didn’t see this before. Yes the problem is definitely the hate and entitlement not his level of experience.
I legit can’t even think of an intelligent comment to make on this, because it’s too repulsive. I like to think that most manospherians are just ordinary guys looking for answers about masculinity and self-identity. Many of them do seem interested in genuine equality and I am almost always keen to try and engage with them and their viewpoints. But once in a while you come across something like this, and you know that whoever wrote it is just totally off the charts batshit insane. They seem to treat life as a zero-sum game where the goal is to squeeze as much benefit out of it for themselves as they can, regardless of how much harm they cause. They treat other people as mere resources and have no interest in benefitting anyone but themselves and occasionally those who agree absolutely with their worldview. It would be sad if it wasn’t so cruel.
So… could we maybe lay on more with the ‘he’s a disgusting, terrible, horrible person for suggesting abuse is cool’ and lay off the ‘he must have no experience with women’ angle?
Just because it doesn’t take experience to know that being nasty and abusive is bad. That should be readily apparent. Plus, it feels like it gives a little to much credence to the dumb argument that MRA and PUA guys use of “I’ve had relations with tons of women.”
It just feels weird to pick up the exact opposite accusation…
If I’m way off base, here, let me know.
In the meantime, here’s a video of a critter who is so much more cuddly and friendly than “Batt Gorney”
Like, orders of magnitude cuter and cuddier.
http://youtu.be/vfwXWkqAhyA
“But can we please not make this about degrading people who don’t have sex/relationship experience?”
– This is not “about degrading people who don’t have sex/relationship experience.”
Its about pointing out the hypocrisy of one man: Matt Forney.
Well I mean, there’s a difference between having no experience in something and just acknowledging that and taking it in as just another part of yourself. And not being knowledgeable in something, and then making shit up just to fill in all the blanks so that you feel better and safe or pleased with yourself.