When you have nothing to say, say it about Cosby.
Yesterday, Men’s Rights garbage site A Voice for Men doubled tripled quadrupled quintupled sextupled septupled octupled-down on its Bill Cosby apologia with an overwrought, overwritten, often barely comprehensible 3000 word opus titled “Why I despise Mass Media and love The Coz” by self-described “libertarian/market anarchist” B.R. Merrick.
Merrick’s basic thesis, as far as I can figure it out, is that Americans have become convinced that Bill Cosby is a rapist because basically they’re a bunch of Puritans witch-hunters at heart who are mad that Cosby went around having probably perfectly legal sex with assorted women who weren’t his wife while playing a stern-but-lovable father figure on TV and in real life.
This is a cultural father figure, successfully married for decades and lecturing black Americans on getting their own affairs in order, who is cutting Quaaludes in half, getting his penis out, and paying young women to keep things quiet and go to college. ….
No amount of colorful sweaters and silly dance moves will hide the fact from a country so zig-zagged in its sexual mores that the actor was merely acting as if Claire Huxtable was the only woman in his bed.
You see what I mean about the incomprehensibility? It took me several tries before I figured out what he was trying to say in that second paragraph there.
Merrick’s post is one that is definitely worth not reading, but it does contain a few rough gems that I’d like to share with you all.
So here are 5 Weird and Untrue Things I Learned from AVFM’s 8th Post Defending Bill Cosby
1) If Americans keep making a big deal about men doing improper things with their penises, the Chinese will take over the world
If you’re as disgusted with the zeitgeist as I am, you can do little else but watch as America reacts with heavily emotional upset every time a penis is seen, and quietly remind yourself as I do on a regular basis that empires cannot exist without first and foremost regulating the men, even as they blame them for anything and everything they can. The more upset your friends and neighbors become, the more the American Empire dies, while the rising Chinese Empire slowly usurps control of the world’s economy.
2) Miley Cyrus’ breasts were caused by Puritanism
Cyrus’s twerks and tits are a direct product, a pendulum swing if you will, of Puritanical thought and practice. She is, after all, following the example of the far more successful, prolific, and long-lasting godmother of sexual rebellion, Madonna, whose life’s work is based on trashing the lessons of Catholicism she has spent her entire career trying to dissolve.
The idea that taboo-breaking is the flip side of repression is hardly new — after all, you can’t break taboos if there are no taboos to break. But I’m pretty sure breast development has more to do with hormones than with Cotton Mather.
3) Roman Polanski already served his time in jail for rape, so why is everybody being so mean to him?
[Cosby] enjoyed sex too much in the wrong way with the wrong people. We know that much from the deposition; and in a culture where millions still want to go after Roman Polanski’s hide, in spite of the fact that he confessed, served his time in jail, and will die a victim of double jeopardy, that’s all that’s necessary.
Well, no, he didn’t. He spent 42 days in jail under psychiatric observation, as part of a plea deal, but fled the country before his sentencing hearing in order to avoid the possibility of, you know, serving his time in jail for the crime he had confessed to. Another ace factchecking job, AVFM!
4) Having sex with women today is like having sex with Susan B. Anthony, who was basically a Puritan, and isn’t it cute that women have the right to vote?
At least that’s what I think Merrick is trying to say here. You figure it out.
The realization that a man needs to have now, especially after the destruction of a comedy icon, is that sex with a woman can at any time and in numerous ways be directly influenced by the detritus left from the religious persecutions of old. The male reader would do well to remember that early feminists were like Susan B. Anthony, an unmarried woman of highly progressive ideals such as temperance, women’s suffrage, and abolitionism. … [T]he modern Progressive movement … bears a direct link to the Puritanical idea of saving humanity from itself. There would have been no 18th Amendment without Progressives, America’s adorable little schoolmarms.
5) Rape victims who “go back for more” are as bad as rapists, if you think about it
I thoroughly enjoyed Cosby’s efforts for decades. I enjoyed his stand-up, his sitcoms, and his public persona. I couldn’t care less about his peccadilloes. I would be sadder still if it were all true, but mindful of the fact that a rape victim, whether male or female, who apparently goes back for more has about as much honor as the perpetrator, and a lot less of my empathy and interest.
A Voice for Men, you really are terrible, aren’t you?
Rape apologists say the funniest things.
Wow, why can’t they just stick to the praises of yeast?
I’m baffled about the rape victims “coming back for more” line. Unless he means that Cosby raping more than one woman means that women, the interchangeable drones of the female hivemind, were part of some collective whole that should have learnt to avoid him from its joint experiences. I guess it doesn’t have to make sense as long as rape is justified and women are to blame.
@WickedWitch
WE ARE THE FEMBORG. ALL MEN WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
The rising Chinese Empire? That must be great. Everyone knows that Chinese women are all meek submissive HB8s, so the sooner the Chinese take over the better. Right?
Cosby is on record admitting that he drugged at least one woman and had sex with her while she was unconscious. How this is not rape is beyond me. Where was her consent to any sexual act he subjected her to while she was blacked out? It’s a shame that he cannot be held criminally responsible for his conduct. Anyone supporting him is scum.
☑ Racism
☑ Victim Blaming
☑ Rape apologia
Must be another AVfM post!
Oh, and I want to point out that Miley Cyrus has recently come out as genderfluid, just for the curious. °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°
“empires cannot exist without first and foremost regulating the men”
Empire BAD! Freedom for market anarchist!!! Liberate mens! Release penises from regulation. Going Galt! FREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOM!
“the more the American Empire dies”
American empire GOOD! Eagles. Guns. Apple pie! Protect our land from bad feminists!
Ugh. Head hurts. Dizzy. Is empire good or is empire bad? Too hard. Who be angry at?
“rising Chinese Empire”
Ah… FOREIGNERS! HATE YOOOOU! Feel better now.
Cotton Mather:
What the ever-loving fuck?
wtf? I thought Polanski was FAMOUS for fleeing the country to avoid prison time? it’s like the one and only thing I know about him. how does someone get the opposite in their head?
So… Chinese penises are less regulated than American penises? And this is why China is becoming positively tumescent, while America wilts?
I actually find this one way less anger inducing than a lot of the shit that gets posted here. Admittedly this may be because I have no idea what the fuck he’s trying to say.
@Zeb
I think it can be boiled down to: Cosby wasn’t raping anyone he was just having sex, people are mean prudes for picking on him, and America will fall if menz aren’t allowed to
rapehave sex like Cosby did.“The male reader would do well to remember that early feminists were like Susan B. Anthony, an unmarried woman…”
The HORROR!
“… of highly progressive ideals such as temperance, women’s suffrage, and abolitionism. …”
Um, does he understand that abolitionism meant abolishing SLAVERY? Because it sounds like he’s saying abolitionism was a bad thing.
@Tara
Considering AVFM’s history with literal Holocaust denial, I’m positive he knew exactly what he was saying.
Empires are like this.
Technically it’s true that rape is having sex in the wrong way with the wrong people. But that’s an appallingly mild way to put it.
Add double jeopardy to the growing list of terms that don’t mean what the MRAs think they do.
@ Brian: Damned if I know. If it was any other site, I’d maybe wonder if they got confused by his temporary detention in 2009 in Switzerland where he almost got deported, but it’s AVfM so it’s much more likely to be lies or laziness.
It’s like our confusion is over-riding our anger, or the fact that this is so par for the course over at AVfM it’s not even surprising, and I know the anger is pointless because these chucklefucks will never change, ever.
Re: Polanski
I’m in full legal nerd mode tonight so here’s something you may find interesting (for a certain value of ‘interesting’).
Polanski wanted to sue a magazine for defamation. He wanted to sue in England, but he didn’t want to attend court in person as we’d deport him back to the US for sentencing. So he applied to give evidence by video link from his bolt hole. The magazine argued that a convicted rapist shouldn’t be able to do that. Why should he be allowed his day in court when he claimed to be a victim but refuse to face the court when he was the perpetrator?
I won’t spoil the result:
http://www.5rb.com/case/polanski-v-conde-nast-publications-ltd-hl/
Well, Cotton Mather wasn’t really a Puritan. He was more of a transitional figure between post-Restoration Puritanism and 18th century American evangelicalism. Puritans, strictly speaking, were people who wanted to reform elements of the Church of England’s liturgy and polity to eliminate Catholic-like elements. The Puritans weren’t really all that similar to what became American Protestantism anyway. Not that I’d expect MRA’s to know that.
Wait. If empires cannot exist without first and foremost regulating the men (premise), the persecution of poor poor innocent Bill Cosby is being persecuted for having Unregulated Sex (premise) should be good for the American Empire. QE-fuckin’-D.
I hate it when pseudointellectuals can’t keep their own bafflegarb straight.
Should be a “who” before the “is” in my comment.
One of these things is not like the others…
What does the modern Progressive movement have to do with issues that were resolved (in the US) in 1933, 1920, and 1865 respectively? All three of them were resolved by Constitutional Amendments and no one is talking about changing any of them.
For a moment I thought I saw the word “Factchoker” in your article. I’ll be using that in the future.