Not a SJW true believer.

Several readers have argued that the Stanford student who wrote the op-ed about being sexually assaulted is a SJW true believer who is sincerely crusading to have Yes Means Yes applied equally to women as it is to men.  I find this highly doubtful because of the way the piece is crafted.

The first tell is the nature of the assault itself.  He starts with a bit of misdirection;  he was surprised when she put her hands down his pants without asking for consent.  But this isn’t the alleged assault, because he immediately follows this by stating that he was ok with it.  The assault he is alleging is her continuing to kiss and grope him as he walked her home.  He tells us that he was into the kissing and groping at first, and that throughout the process he was “horny”.  He also makes it clear that he deliberately decided to allow her to continue this because he decided it would further his aim of getting her home safely.  He said no, after he meant yes, while he was clearly aroused, and while he deliberately allowed her to continue.

He tells us this didn’t traumatize him, and that he didn’t think about this for months.  Then he realized that what happened sounds an awful lot like sexual assault as defined by the university.  But even after reading the university definition, he tells us, he wasn’t convinced that this was actually assault.  So he set out on a quest to answer this question;  was he assaulted?

He shops this question around to the various organizations supporting “Yes means Yes”, and details the hypocrisy he finds.  After he busts the rape counselor for blaming the victim, he keeps asking until a representative of the university finally confirmed that yes, this (ridiculous scenario) was assault.

Once he gets the answer he was looking for, he takes a clear shot at the absurdity of the campus policy (emphasis mine):

What she does not deserve is expulsion. We need to understand that we can’t solve these grey issues with black and white statements and punishments.

By demanding a “strong presumption in favor of expulsion” through last quarter’s ASSU Task Force Proposal, we begin to force the hand of the administration in cases where they should instead be using a discerning eye. Under the proposal, the only mitigating factor that can be brought forth to fight expulsion is the presence of a “pertinent, acute mental illness.” Mistaken consent, cooperation with the judicial review process and evidence of a lack of malicious intent are all outlined as factors that are inadequate to bring forth an argument against expulsion. It is completely understandable why the ASSU would deem these as inappropriate, but in practice this results in harsh punishments that fail to account for the differing degrees of sexual misconduct and rape.

Keep in mind that the scenario is a perfectly defined case of mistaken consent.  If you play the story from her shoes, the man is excited and initially clearly into her.  Then he starts saying no but continues to kiss her and deliberately allows her to grope him.  This is the “assault”.

It has been argued that this is not an example of black knighting because the author isn’t out to have anyone expelled.  I don’t know if that is truly a requirement for the term, but perhaps a better description of the article is a form of satire.  This is a policy which can only be discussed by those claiming victim status.  Other perspectives are not allowed.  The only way to ridicule the policy is to pose as a ridiculous victim.

This leaves the question of whether the events described actually occurred at all.  Unlike the Rolling Stone UVA story, this one seems at least plausible.  The author may well have thought about how the absurd campus rules would look if applied to a real incident he experienced and decided to go from there.  However, feminists have already set the rules here.  It isn’t permitted to question the story of someone who claims they were assaulted.  Either way, there is nothing solid which could be disproved about this story, just like so many of the stories used to create the policy in the first place.  And if the author recants the entire story tomorrow, he could continue to drive his (satirical) point home by pointing out that fact checking shouldn’t define the narrative, and that the important thing is that men are victims of sexual assault.

This entry was posted in Rape Culture, Satire, Social Justice Warriors, Yes Means Yes. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Not a SJW true believer.

  1. Pingback: Not a SJW true believer. | Manosphere.com

  2. Cane Caldo says:

    I did consider that the story could be a satire or a lie, but it still seems to me that the author’s end goal is not the institution of good judgment, but to provide support for a more perfect egalitarianism. If “never blame the victim” is technically extended to men, then the arguments for why it shouldn’t be used against men become inadmissible. We already see this in the business world with sexual harassment. I believe this article is a tool for entrenchment of the current system; not a check against it’s absurdity.

    Anecdotally, Justin Brown ’15 is a black Urban Studies major. Here is the description for the Stanford Urban Studies program:

    What is Urban Studies?
    An interdisciplinary, undergraduate program at Stanford that combines academic approaches with real-world experience to understand cities. If you’ve ever wondered why people live in cities (or suburbs), how the physical environment influences behavior, or how to address seemingly intractable problems like urban poverty, homelessness, or troubled schools, Urban Studies may be for you.

    Our students take a common set of prerequisite and core classes, as well as skills classes in research methods and Geographic Information Systems. This work provides the basis for a specialization in one of our five concentration areas:

    – Cities in Comparative and Historical Perspective
    – Urban Education
    – Urban Society and Social Change
    – Urban Sustainability
    – Self-Designed.

    In other words: a perfectly SJW waste of time.

  3. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Anecdotally, Justin Brown ’15 is a black Urban Studies major.

    Good find. I hadn’t seen that. As you say, that major has SJW all over it. This could be a case of Poe’s law. I still am not convinced though, because the example is so perfectly ridiculous. It could be that he really thinks he is raising awareness to the fact that being assaulted doesn’t feel like assault, but in the end I think his piece will serve as satire either way, intentional or not.

  4. Hmm,..I think it’s my moral imperative to go interview this guy and find out exactly what happened. The best part is I won’t really need to interview his alleged rapists or bother trying to verify her name. All I’ll need is a few of his friends to corroborate his account (after I embellish it with some questionable, but no-less-believable-because-it’s-rape pulp fiction) and I’m positive the editorial staff at Rolling Stone will publish it for the mass consumption of a hysterical ‘rape culture’s” indignation starved needs.

  5. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    I did consider that the story could be a satire or a lie, but it still seems to me that the author’s end goal is not the institution of good judgment, but to provide support for a more perfect egalitarianism. If “never blame the victim” is technically extended to men, then the arguments for why it shouldn’t be used against men become inadmissible. We already see this in the business world with sexual harassment. I believe this article is a tool for entrenchment of the current system; not a check against it’s absurdity.

    Then why the complaint that the system doesn’t allow consideration of genuine misunderstanding as a mitigating factor? Switching sexes allows for sympathy for the accused, and he carefully makes the case that while he said no a few times, he then decided to “comply” to get her to do what he wanted. It is her reading his compliance as a “yes” after he had previously stated “no” which constitutes the assault. This is exactly the kind of scenario opponents of the law use to argue against it, where alcohol and unclear communication result in a misunderstanding.

  6. DeNihilist says:

    What I get out if the story, and the following comments, especially the “you could have just walked away” is how we men are still hard wired to protect females. He is getting assaulted, but still will not leave her for FEAR that she MAY GET ASSAULTED! And as one commenter said, if he did walk away and leave her, either she gets pissed and accuses him, or something does happen to her and he still gets blamed for leaving a drunken female to be predated on.

    Can’t win for losing in this scenario.

  7. The Brass Cat says:

    If too many college men begin rebuffing the gropey advances of drunk college women and report these per the letter of the law, new standards will be needed. Feminists will soon agitate for “Erection Means Yes” laws.

  8. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I’ll have to look up Poe’s Law.

    I still am not convinced though, because the example is so perfectly ridiculous.

    Totally agree. While reading it I had the thought that it should be satire, but I just didn’t hear the satire itself.

    It could be that he really thinks he is raising awareness to the fact that being assaulted doesn’t feel like assault, but in the end I think his piece will serve as satire either way, intentional or not.

    I suspect that it will serve as satire to us, and those like us. Liberals/SJWs are driven to control the lives of men, but they will not turn down the offer to control everyone. It would suit them just fine, and give them the opportunity to seem merciful when they let women and favored males from “disadvantaged backgrounds” off the hook while retaining their egalitarian bona fides. For the same reasons they make women attend sexual harassment training in the office. It’s worthless for women because the paradigm that instructs the sexual harassment training flows from male forms of sexual harassment, but at least they can claim fairness.*

    Run-of-the-mill conservatives will take the author as earnest, and–in an effort to conserve “fairness”–will let them.

    *A legitimate women’s sexual harassment course from a useful paradigm would warn them against trying to use their bodies and attentions for promotion, favors, etc.

  9. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    We cross-posted.

    Then why the complaint that the system doesn’t allow consideration of genuine misunderstanding as a mitigating factor?

    If I understand your question, I would say that particular complaint is born of the fact that no one is perfectly anything; not even SJW. Part of him is still a black male with all the concerns that go with that.

    Here’s the situation: He’s a light-skinned black male college student who plays in a jazz band at a major liberal university. He’s in high demand for one-night-stands (especially if he likes girls of his own race) and casual sex. The events of the story probably happen to him on enough of a regular basis that there are times when he’d rather just go home.

  10. The Brass Cat says:

    Cane Caldo says:

    For the same reasons they make women attend sexual harassment training in the office. It’s worthless for women because the paradigm that instructs the sexual harassment training flows from male forms of sexual harassment, but at least they can claim fairness.*

    It’s not quite worthless for them. They need a good working description of sexual harassment so they know what specific details and buzzwords to include in their false reports.

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    @The Brass Cat

    It’s not quite worthless for them.

    True enough. Though, I was working under the (yet to be seen) assumption of a sexual harassment course designed to stop female sexual harassment.

  12. heresolong says:

    @Brass Hat. Let me finish that quote for you properly:

    If too many college men begin rebuffing the gropey advances of drunk college women

    then on of the main reasons that men go to college just goes away and they might as well drop out and get a job.

  13. Bango Tango says:

    Of course the story is a lie. You guys are experts in picking apart the feminine imperative but absolutely clueless about the larger context of manipulation. There is still a Marxist conspiracy at the top that is hell bent on throwing society into chaos by turning women against men and men against women. It’s called divide and conquer. They don’t always play favorites to women, they will take the position of the MRA and put a fake story in their university controlled opt ed if it suits them. Especially if it keeps the absurd sex allegation policy in place by appealing to men. Duh.

    As I said before you all need to research psy-ops and understand the media is lying and manipulating you from the big news media operations to your small university propaganda outlets. Remember the universities survive on government grants. They are beholden to their Marxist paymasters. Are you listening IBB? It’s not Dungeons and Dragons. It’s reality…get a clue.

  14. Johnycomelately says:

    This is no joke, this is deliberate social engineering propaganda to equate the ‘genders’, much like MRAs. Rather than objecting rape hysteria outright he raises it to some kind of androgynous eschaton where sex is neutral.

    “She does deserve to know that what she did is defined as sexual assault…She deserves to be educated about her mistakes, but this education remains unavailable to her…It marginalizes the already silent population of male victims…Gendering these conversations…Ensuring safety for everyone…While we may disagree on the path, we’re all envisioning the same goal.”

    Let’s turn men into women and forget about divorce rape, alimony tyranny, state sanctioned kidnapping of children and parental alienation.

  15. JDG says:

    Rather than objecting rape hysteria outright he raises it to some kind of androgynous eschaton where sex is neutral.

    Yep! Even as a parody within a parody, it still leaves the readers with the impression that the feminist / egalitarian / sex neutral frame is the correct one.

  16. Splashman says:

    I gotta say, this seems like a pointless exercise in tail-chasing, Dalrock. If, as you have admitted, one cannot know whether the event described even took place — let alone whether the details are accurate — then this all becomes some sort of fantastical meta-discussion of ifs and buts, useful only for filling the InterTubes. As always, it’s your blog, but geez . . .

  17. MarcusD says:

    Nonbelieving Wife and I Raising a Son
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=938167

    Sexual Identity, Faith, and Family – What a mess
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=938116

    Wife with Vaginismus / Unconsummated Marriage
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=938193

  18. Lyn87 says:

    Rolling Stone put out a fictional account of “The Fraternity Gang Rape That Never Was” and the whole world accepted is as true, even though even a cursory look at the circumstances should have evoked a “probably not” response. The idea that seven men would commit a violent sexual felony over a period of several hours in a building that was full of people, on top of a pile of glass shards – with nobody noticing or saying anything and no injuries to the story-teller – is preposterous.

    The story told by the male Stanford student may or may not be true, but unlike “gang-rape-on-broken-glass,” the kind of encounter he described is pretty common. I’m no great looker, but in my younger single days I had women step over the line on two occasions. By “step over the line” I mean the women took actions that could get a man kicked out of college today. I don’t consider myself to be a sexual assault survivor, though – I’ll leave that drama to the SJW-types. If his story is satire, it at least points to something real – the absurdly broad definition of sexual assault that has grown to include the fumbling around we all experienced at some point in our young lives. The Rolling Stone story points to something that doesn’t exist at all: campus “rape culture” running rampant and unchecked.

    His story is one that happens all the time (both ways – drunk college kids of ether sex aren’t known for making good decisions about ambiguous signals), while her story was a “too good to check” SJW wet dream that should have been treated with skepticism from the first moments.

  19. Gurney Halleck says:

    L.O.L @ some of the comments in that Stanford Daily piece. Pure gold.

  20. Spike says:

    While the piece could well be an example of black knighting, it has a ring of truth. When women want something out of a man, they will talk, talk, talk, make out, talk, offer sex and everything in between in order to get him to stay around, despite him being tired, needing to work or study the next day, despite an early morning start for whatever it is – She comes first, of course. Young women behave exactly as described in this case, their standard operating procedure.

  21. dorsey47 says:

    May I just add the term ‘gray knight’ to the discussion.

  22. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t think it has to be unfactual for it to be black knighting. It may very well have happened. The BK part comes from the spin put on it, and it seems that the clear point of the piece is that the definition of sexual assault on campuses is patently absurd.

  23. Boxer says:

    RULES FOR MEN IN FEMINIST MOVEMENTS

    Men who join feminist movements and stay in, for any length of time, usually fall into two camps: mentally unstable (trannies, masochists, etc.) or desperate men who are looking to socialize with skanky feminist wimminz. We can’t do much about those in the first category, and they are usually too damaged to matter anyway. The men in the second category ought to be considered our deadly enemies, as they’re the people who do nearly all the productive work in these movements.*

    These men are resistant to shaming from antifeminist men, and any psychological resistance from us would probably deepen their resolve to fight us patriarchal types. Their weakness is criticism from women.

    Women who like to pretend to be on the side of patriarchy ought to openly mock and laugh at male feminists at every opportunity. This may be the most valuable work that “red-pill women” can do.

    Boxer

    *Note the inherent tension in the original article, posted here by Marcus, authored by some nutter calling herself “rad dyke bitch” (LOL!). She knows that men are an absolute necessity, to provide the labor and money that any feminist group needs, as wimminz like herself are not used to working and don’t like it, either. She’d love it if her dyke circle-jerk was self-sufficient, but it isn’t and never will be. The best she can hope for is enough men to fund and manage her whiny little therapy group, while not having any of them personally interacting with her. It’s a tall order.

  24. Glenfilthie says:

    I am just boggled. Vapour locked.

    Let me try- TRY – to get this straight. Back in the 90’s these social justice types mainstreamed homosexuality and other sexual degenerates and deviants saying ‘GUBBERMINT HAS NO PLACE IN PEOPLE’S PRIVATE BEDROOMS!!!!!’.

    Now these same sexually depraved ass holes are telling us that we darn near need to have forms filled out in triplicate, to be examined, approved, stamped and filed -by four gubbermint bureaucrats and three lawyers…before we can have sex with our girlfriends!

    It is the stuff of high comedy. No thanks, morons! I live in Mayberry where the clock stopped back in the 50’s. Our women are intelligent, pretty and demure; our men are resourceful, independent and prideful of the family and community. I dunno about you but as far as I am concerned The New Society can take its SJW’s, feminists, faggots and fools – and shove that lot up it’s collective arse!

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have better things to do. The hobby shop beckons.

  25. Rex says:

    Longtime reader just venting. I’m very frustrated by the slow motion train wreck i see unfolding. Sometimes bad women do “win” in the end and don’t end up as lonely cat ladies. Moreover, some men can’t be saved from themselves…
    A guy I know was cuckolded by his wife. As a result, they divorced. She recently married the guy she cheated with, and they are living in the house from her marriage to my friend. A few days ago she announced she’s pregnant! The guy I know started dating again. He’s now in a committed relationship with a woman who is divorced with one kid. She’s 42. I’ve seen her and would rate her a 7, but only for her age. As it turns out, she and her ex have a few friends in common with me. Guess what I found out… She cheated on her husband too. It was with a guy who has an interesting and very high-status job. She practically threw herself at him. She mistook his willingness to have sex with her for an interest in a fairy tale relationship. After blowing up her marriage, she realized her new lover wasn’t ever going to commit. She settled for his crumbs for a few months until she found out he was actively chasing other women. She didn’t waste any time, immediately signing up for dating sites. After a couple of months (and a few Pump and Dumps, I’m sure,) she met my friend. He’s only a few years older than her. His ex-wife who cheated is 12 years younger than him. He’s always wanted kids, and was about to start trying with his ex before she cheated. The chances of this new 42 year old woman getting pregnant are next to zero. He hasn’t really met his new girlfriend’s son yet. The mutual acquaintance told me that the kid has some sort of psychological issues. I’m not sure if my friend is aware of that. I also don’t know how much he knows about the end of his GF’s marriage. My friend is tall, ok looking and has a good job and an active social life plus hobbies and interests. To say he’s getting a bad deal would be an understatement: a post-fertile woman with a history of cheating and a screwed up son. Obviously she sees my friend as her backup plan. I’ve thought of sending him some info anonymously. I can’t tell him directly for several reasons, which I won’t get into. Any ideas for links to sucinct articles on which might wake him up to his own value?The Roosh/Heartiste and other crass PUA stuff might be too much for him. He’s not religious.

  26. thedeti says:

    Every time a male feminist speaks up or says anything, the only response he should be given is:

    “They’re still not going to have sex with you.”

    That’s it. Just keep telling them that.

  27. Cane Caldo says:

    @Nova

    I don’t think it has to be unfactual for it to be black knighting. It may very well have happened. The BK part comes from the spin put on it, and it seems that the clear point of the piece is that the definition of sexual assault on campuses is patently absurd.

    You’re correct that it doesn’t have to be untrue to be black-knighting; that it could have been simply spun. In fact I do think he has spun his feelings about the events. Regardless, I don’t think it is black-knighting because it seems to me he is not trying to take down anything, but rather bolster it by making the definitions more inclusive. Rather than this being an example of black-knighting from Group A against Group B, it is an ecumenical overture towards Group B. Ultimately, it is meant to sell out Group A before a resistance within Group A against the intrinsic unfairness of the actions of Group B can coalesce.

    Liberals are well-aware that an ecumenical extension of “women’s rights” to “human rights” is harmless because it will be rarely used by men. When it is, if the plaintiffs are the “wrong sort of men” (I mean that they are not SJWs), the more ruthless SJWs can use the idea of fairness to let the assailants against the “wrong sort of men” off the hook. Similarly, the right sort of man–say, a liberal black Urban Studies jazz player–can be extended “understanding and forgiveness” while they simultaneously crucify a white electrical engineering DnD player.

    Over the decades, we’ve seen how many SJW notions on gender equality have moved from being labeled “women’s rights” to the label of “human rights”. This gives a veneer of FairPlay that is inviting to people who otherwise might protest that men are people, too. I mean it gives conservatives a reason to conserve the ridiculous notion of never questioning the victim; which has been a really effective lever against truth and justice for SJWs.

    That’s the direction I see the article going. Of course I could be wrong about the author’s intent, but I would still contend that I have a legitimate concern about it’s reception.

  28. Joe says:

    Men can’t be raped, the same way white people can’t be racially discriminated against. It’s in the rules, man.

  29. Gunner Q says:

    “May I just add the term ‘gray knight’ to the discussion.”

    No, I think satire, dialetic and disproving are better words. Pointing out a system’s flaws doesn’t need a new term.

    If that’s even what this guy is doing. I’m confused.

  30. BradA says:

    Wouldn’t black knighting have a goal of making the coverage wide to point out the insanity Cane? I am a bit unclear on that part of your argument. I may be misreading it of course.

  31. Tam the Bam says:

    ” .. black knighting”
    ” .. gray knight”
    “the right sort of man–say, a liberal black Urban Studies jazz player”
    Oh I give up, US campus “politics” is too inscrutable. Hermetically sealed against intruders like a crash-landed alien pod. Would I get into an awful lot of dat’s-rayciss bother if I suggested “Beige Knighting”, then? How about “We are the Knights Who Say N***** “??

  32. Cane Caldo says:

    @Brad

    Wouldn’t black knighting have a goal of making the coverage wide to point out the insanity Cane?

    Not the way I understand the term. It’s irrelevant if I’m correct that the author is in fact for egalitarianism, never questioning the victim, SJW values, and all the other drivel.

    The most friendly interpretation I can come up with is that he’s arguing for keeping the doctrines of Feminism, but discarding the penalties because he assumes the particulars of any case ultimately aren’t knowable by a third-party.

    That interpretation is still the enemy of truth and justice, and therefore my enemy.

  33. zodak says:

    even if that’s not his goal, the outcome will be to make “regret rape” a valid form of rape. sjw will now be able to point at this idiot & say “see, it happens to men too, our policies are trying to make things better for everyone” which will just ruin more men’s lives. so this black knight is not helping men.

  34. MarcusD says:

    Queens Woman Sues Tights Company Over Lack Of Orgasms
    http://gothamist.com/2015/01/14/orgasm_tights_lawsuit.php

  35. Lyn87 says:

    Gurney Halleck,

    Wow, that chick is a loon. I’m not sure she wrote more than one or to sentences in her entire screed that wasn’t pure twaddle. Of course anyone who cites the “expert” opinions of Dave Futrelle with regard to the MRM is already barking up the wrong tree… in the wrong forest… on the wrong continent.

  36. Maunalani says:

    I would give Justin Brown ’15 the Jonathan Swift Award.

  37. greyghost says:

    Gurney Halleck
    That article was just some liberal chick looking for a way to insult men. MGTOW will give this woman nothing to write about. Her article depends on men giving a damn about women.

  38. Virtue says:

    Gahaha. C’mon on now gents. Relax! This is definitely satire. The guy did a great job.

  39. Mark Citadel says:

    I cannot understand why any man that wasn’t some kind of sexual deviant with psychotic issues would actually support the feminazi cause. It’s not even as if their women are attractive? Most are pigs with no feminine attributes whatsoever.

  40. Dalrock,

    Thought you’d be interested in this. The comments section is pure hamster gold. Note if you go to the corollary one for women to men there is more than a magnitude less comments on it.

    http://nycpastor.com/2014/12/29/10-women-christian-men-should-not-marry/

  41. ballista74 says:

    Even more interesting of that blog above is how the Churchian SJW’s descended on a blog with 10 total posts like that. Only that blog owner knows in a more certain way, but it suggests (especially given some of the posts) that there almost has to be someone looking for stuff like that.

  42. ballista74 says:

    Should have searched the URL. Turned out it was mentioned on a certain secular feminist website’s Arsebook account, which will go nameless as most here will know which one it is.

  43. Lol, the bitches in that “10 women Christian men shouldn’t marry” are flailing around with all sorts of anger, resentment and condescension towards the author; thereby showing exactly why they’re not to be married at all. Haha. Got to love it! Keep it up ladies!

  44. I cannot understand why any man that wasn’t some kind of sexual deviant with psychotic issues would actually support the feminazi cause.

    He thinks it will make girls like him, and more likely to sleep with him. That’s all. No, serious feminists generally aren’t very attractive, but he’s been taught that most women are feminist, or at least support what feminists have succeeded in framing as “women’s issues.” When I was 18, I pretty much bought that line. I didn’t go so far as to walk around calling myself a male feminist, but I assumed that professing pro-life views would repulse girls, for instance.

    Put that assumption together with a weak, effeminate personality that craves membership in a herd, and you get the male feminist.

    The blue-pill guy has no idea why a woman chooses to sleep with a man. None whatsoever. He knows that some things seem to work: motorcycles, for instance, seem to work pretty well. Big muscles work. Good hair helps. But they don’t always work, and he has no idea why those things work when they do with the women they work with. Flowers and poetry are supposed to work, but they haven’t for him, and he has no idea why. Girls — even good friends and relatives who are honestly trying to help him — tell him that good girls won’t be swayed by motorcycles and muscles, no matter what his lying eyes are telling him; the key is to be nice and send flowers and wait for Miss Right to come along.

    So, to be ready for Miss Right, he projects on her what kind of person he likes to spend time with: someone who doesn’t challenge his beliefs or make him feel bad, someone who just wants to spend time with him without a bunch of expectations he might not be able to meet. Someone who works to make him feel good. So he sets out to present himself that way to women: he nods along with what he’s been told are their feminist beliefs, and just hangs around in their herd complimenting them and waiting for one to suddenly start liking him for whatever mysterious reasons that happens.

    Those are the more normal (and reachable) ones; some are just psychotic perverts like you suggest, of course.

  45. earl says:

    First hamsterbation…

    ‘Well, I guess all missionaries are out because they seem to have “wander-lust.”

    Yeah because that is the type of girl he was describing in that title.

  46. You don’t marry a woman who describes herself as a ‘missionary’ anyway. A woman with that sort of ‘idea’ is ready for traveling to places where she can pretend to do missionary work but instead do everything else with exotic men in missionary position and all other positions too. Avoid all women who don’t intend to be wives and stay with their husbands where ever their husband has to go for work and so forth.

    These ‘christian’ women seem determined to prove why they are not to be married at all, ever..

  47. You don’t marry a woman who describes herself as a ‘missionary’ anyway.

    You don’t want one with that attitude, even if she never travels. The girl who sees herself as a missionary isn’t going to marry you, the Nice Boy At Church. No, she’s going to find herself a Bad Boy and save his soul. She even gets cover for sleeping with him — she had to give in, because he was so close to conversion, and he was going to leave her and stop coming to church if she didn’t spread her legs. What’s a little fornication, if it saves a man’s soul?

    The very word “missionary” suggests that she already has a mission of her own, and what are the odds it will always match yours? You want a woman who will make your mission her own, not the other way around.

  48. Weenis says:

    I hope that we all fall into hardship severe enough that we cannot afford the absurd luxury of entertaining ridiculous BS like this guy’s article.

    We’d all be better for it.

  49. Mark Citadel says:

    @Deep Strength, WOW they really jumped on that guy, huh. I’m sort of waiting for some of these right wing Christian blogs that really go extreme, as so many of ours do, to be targeted by SPLC splinter-douche, hatewatch.com, which obsessively trolls the net looking for dissension against Modernism’s precious little doctrines. Just one feminazi facebook post can cause 600 like-minded and similarly cobweb-groined tubs of lard to come running. haha

  50. Boxer says:

    Off topic:

    New Bride Leaves Husband for Bad Boy — Who Immediately Dumps Her Sorry Ass

    “Why did you do this to me? I gave up everything,” I texted.

    “Because you have a good pussy?” he replied.

    http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-44321.html

    No one wants a slut who is incapable of keeping her commitments. That bitch is useless, and nothing but trouble.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  51. Spacetraveller says:

    Oh Boxer,

    I think you found Jenny Erikson: Take 2 (minus the fake Christianity):

    http://brokelyn.com/sometimes-good-idea-bang-roommate/

    Wow, how *did* the world get to this? This woman is STILL chasing the bad boys. Did she learn nothing from Bryce?
    I feel so sorry for you men. What with women now routinely groping men in public and this cold-hearted dumping of a man after 6 months of marriage for no valid reason, I am REALLY starting to understand why MGTOW exists…

  52. MarcusD says:

    http://nycpastor.com/2014/12/29/10-women-christian-men-should-not-marry/

    Wow, those comments are something else…

    Unsurprising that the male version has about 25 times fewer comments.

  53. donalgraeme says:

    @ Spacetraveler

    I feel so sorry for you men. What with women now routinely groping men in public and this cold-hearted dumping of a man after 6 months of marriage for no valid reason, I am REALLY starting to understand why MGTOW exists…

    Keep this in mind in the times ahead. The future is going to become increasingly dark, and many of the men who would have ordinarily fought against the darkness will instead embrace it because of what women have become.

  54. Anonymous Reader says:


    I feel so sorry for you men. What with women now routinely groping men in public and this cold-hearted dumping of a man after 6 months of marriage for no valid reason, I am REALLY starting to understand why MGTOW exists…

    Think about this the next time you read some man ending a comment or posting or note with “enjoy the decline”. Because there’s multiple ways to go ghost, and multiple ways to enjoy the decline, and not all of them involve some nerdy guy poolside with a drink under an umbrella.

  55. Spacetraveller says:

    Donalgraeme and AR,

    Yes, I hear both of you. The future is indeed bleak, but I cling to hope nonetheless that things will change, somehow. (My hope is irrational, but so be it :-)).

    But, honestly, the above examples make me want to retch…
    Appalling examples of womanhood. Definitely not what God himself designed…

  56. Chris says:

    I feel very “that’s not a knife, THIS is a knife” about this:

    that’s not black knighting

    black knighting would be banging the girl, and then reporting her anyway.

    Dead serious.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s