Tag Archives: rape

1996 Was The Dark Ages For Women’s Rights, Or, How I Raped A Girl At Bergdorf Goodman

One of my cherished early memories is sitting at the dining room table with my Dad while he read the Washington Post and I read the local neighborhood newspaper, which was easier for me to understand because the writing was simpler and the stories were about neighborhood stuff I knew about.

So I always associated newspapers with intelligent, serious people – like my Dad. I became an avid newspaper reader myself, but always preferred the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times. It was obvious to me by 2002 that the New York Times was pure shit-tier propaganda and when Judith Miller was busted for printing Israeli propaganda about “Saddam’s WMDs” I was vindicated.

But The Washington Post ain’t what it used to be. Reading the comments on the New York Times and the Washington Post has disabused me about the intelligence or seriousness of newspaper readers. I’m only glad my Dad ain’t around to see this.

“Rita from California” comments on why E. Jean Carroll did not report Donald Trump to the police after he allegedly raped her in the women’s dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman’s.

I can only shake my head in dismay when people wonder why she didn’t report the assault. No understanding of the times. No understanding of the work environment.

You know, back in the dark ages when a woman couldn’t accuse a man of rape.

1996.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-bracing-truth-and-sadness-in-e-jean-carrolls-advice-columns/2019/06/25/30c336b2-96bf-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html

I remember in 1996 walking to class and seeing slogans graffitied all over the campus reading “All Men Are Potential Rapists” and “Take Back The Night.” I found out that there was an “anti-rape” rally that night. I came to understand that there was a rapist on campus and I figured I would attend because, hey, I was friends with a lot of girls on campus. I even once served as one of the “escorts” where you would walk a girl to her car if she had late classes. I mean, I got it.

But then a girl explained to me that one third of the girls on my campus had been raped. I was like, what? By the rapist? No, she explained, by the frat guys. The frat guys? I thought to myself, those guys that set up a hot tub on the quad and sat around in it wearing goofy-looking Tom Cruise sunglasses hoping to get people to join their club? Those guys were going around raping the co-eds?

Well I didn’t attend but when the gals showed up to party after the rally a lot of them were really worked up about rape and some seemed rather hysterical and positively hostile. I think I retired early that night.

Later my girlfriend told me, tearfully, that she had been raped in college. I had fantasies about killing the bastard. But then later she explained that she had forgiven the guy and they actually dated for a while after the rape. So, yeah, I started to realize that “rape” kind of means different things to different people.

In high school my friend and I would drive around, see girls walking down the street, offer to give them a ride, then ask them if they wanted to come back to our place – and sometimes they did. We would pair off and, you know, do it. Sometimes not “all the way” but sometimes “all the way.”

I can just imagine it now: 30 years later some woman writes a book. “Sally and I were walking down the street just as it was getting dark when two leering frat boys started cat-calling us from their car, demanding we get in. A guy called “Hipster” was so intimidating we got into the car, then they drove us back to their place where they isolated us from each other, forced us into separate bedrooms and raped us.”

“Then you know we hung out for a few weeks with these guys until we found better boyfriends and we never saw them again. But we were just too intimidated to go to the police and report this roving duo of lecherous rapists luring underage girls after dark. We were only 16!”

Back in 1996 no one believed in rape and men could just go around raping people and the cops would do nothing. In fact, if a woman went to the police they would probably have been gang raped by the police, who would then call up the rapists and invite them to join in the gang bang!

What’s even funnier: I raped a girl in Bergdorf Goodman’s about 10 years after Donald Trump raped that 51 year old woman in Bergdorf Goodman. It’s the one in midtown. There was some sort of after party for the employees and this girl I knew was invited and I was her +1. We drank a lot, then sort of walked out of the main party room, sat down on some couches where I proceed to feel her up, grab her by the pussy (and I didn’t even ask, she just let me) then took her home and raped her all night.

If you give them a good rogering they won’t tell and will quite often come back for more raping. It’s only “rape-rape” if you don’t make them orgasm.

So boys, just do a good job and they won’t report you to the police. We need to teach men to rape more skillfully. (Remember, it’s the little man in the boat.)

As for the Washington Post, or the New York Times, don’t read the comment section. It will just prove to you that democracy doesn’t work and women have no business voting.

I am a man, a man I’ll give ya something that ya won’t forget
I said you shouldn’t have worn that dress
I said you shouldn’t have worn that dress, worn that dress

I know you want what’s on my mind
I know you like what’s on my mind
I know it eats you up inside
I know you know, you know, you know

Here I come, I come, I come, I come

Dworkin, De Sade, the Right & the Left

Not long after the Abu Ghraib scandal, on a flight to Paris, I watched “Quills,” an awful and boring film “inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade.” I had read Justine which I thought of as a horror novel, a perverted Steven King story, and knew some details of de Sade’s life and legend. While Quills itself was too trite to work up any moral outrage over, I began to question why de Sade was hailed as a hero by those on the “left” and the reception the film got from the “liberal” Hollywood establishment.

Wasn’t the Marquis de Sade exhibit number one of the rich preying on the poor, the aristocracy abusing the peasantry, the 1% exploiting the 99%? Wasn’t it “nobles” like de Sade who caused the French Revolution? Wasn’t it the cruely of men like de Sade which led to the bloodthirstiness of the guillotines?

I could understand a bit of taboo-breaking and a little kinky naughtiness, but Justine wasn’t that – it was horror, torture porn, and not at all sexy but instead had the same appeal as a slasher flick or body horror: you don’t “enjoy” it as much as forcing yourself to overcome your gag reflex and facing the worst, biological based fears, seems to make you stronger.

But what offended me about Quills was the complete misrepresentation about de Sade’s actual life. Instead of a wealthy and powerful exploiter of the weak and the poor, he was played as some sort of liberty-lover, a fighter against sexual oppression. The only reason de Sade himself wasn’t beheaded is because he switched sides, along with some other minor aristocrats, and joined the “rebels” long enough to save his head, and those of a few others, before the Terror ended.

Here’s the utterly absurd and completely deceptive byline for Quills:

Quills imagines the final days of history’s most infamous sexual adventurer, the Marquis de Sade. A nobleman with a literary flair, the Marquis lives in a madhouse where a beautiful laundry maid (Winslet) smuggles his erotic stories to a printer, defying orders from the asylum’s resident priest (Phoenix). The titillating passages whip all of France into a sexual frenzy, until a fiercely conservative doctor (Caine) tries to put an end to the fun, inadvertently stoking the excitement to a fever pitch. Featuring a cast that includes Academy Award® winner Geoffrey Rush, Oscar nominee Kate Winslet, rising star Joaquin Phoenix, and Academy Award® winner Michael Caine, Quills playfully turns Sade’s story into a sexy, sinister and shattering tale he himself might have written.

The scene in Quills that most sticks in my memory in that of a servant girl begging de Sade to write more “violence” so she could read it and be aroused. This is literally a reversal of reality, it’s having the rape victim beg to be raped. Whatever literary merits de Sade may have, in reality he was a rapist, a torturer, a poisoner, an abortionist and a murderer. He was John Wayne Gacy plus Jeffrey Dahmer, not Christian Grey.

And here Hollywood was making him out to be some sort of sex-positive feminist just giving the ladies what they want!

Apparently, the left has always had this attitude toward de Sade. Some choice excerpts Andrea Dworkin’s chapter on de Sade from Pornography: Men Possessing Women:

https://archive.org/details/PornographyMenPossessingWomenAndreaDworkinPdf/page/n8


The Marquis de Sade is the world’s foremost pornographer. As such he both embodies and defines male sexual values. In him, one finds rapist and writer twisted into one scurvy knot. His life and writing were of a piece, a whole cloth soaked in the blood of women imagined and real. In his life he tortured and raped women. He was batterer, rapist, kidnapper, and child abuser. In his work he relentlessly celebrated brutality as the essence of eroticism; fucking, torture, and killing were fused; violence and sex, synonymous. His work and legend have survived nearly two centuries because literary, artistic, and intellectual men adore him and political thinkers on the Left claim him as an avatar of freedom. Sainte-Beuve named Sade and Byron as the two most significant sources of inspiration for the original and great male writers who followed them. Baudelaire, Flaubert, Swinburne, Lautreamont, Dostoevski, Cocteau, and Apollinaire among others found in Sade what Paul Tillich, another devotee of pornography, might have called “the courage to be.” Simone de Beauvoir published a long apologia for Sade. Camus, who unlike Sade had an aversion to murder, romanticized Sade as one who had mounted “the great offensive against a hostile heaven ” and was possibly “the first theoretician of absolute rebellion .” Roland Barthes wallowed in the tiniest details of Sade’s crimes, those committed in life as well as on paper.

Sade was born into a noble French family closely related to the reigning monarch. Sade was raised with the prince, four years his senior, during his earliest years. When Sade was four, his mother left the Court and he was sent to live with his grandmother. At the age of five, he was sent to live with his uncle, the Abbe de Sade, a clergyman known for his sensual indulgences. Sade’s father, a diplomat and soldier, was absent during Sade’s formative years. Inevitably, biographers trace Sade’s character to his mother’s personality, behavior, and alleged sexual repression, despite the fact that very little is known about her. What is known, but not sufficiently noted, is that Sade was raised among the male mighty.

At the age of fifteen, Sade entered the military as an officer. At this age, he apparently began gambling and frequenting brothels. Purchasing women was one of the great passions of his life, and most of the women and girls he abused during his lifetime were whores or servants. Sade advanced in the military and was promoted several times, each promotion bringing with it more money.

Those leftists who champion Sade might do well to remember that prerevolutionary France was filled with starving people. The feudal system was both cruel and crude. The rights of the aristocracy to the labor and bodies of the poor were unchallenged and not challengeable. The tyranny of class was absolute. The poor sold what they could, including themselves, to survive. Sade learned and upheld the ethic of his class.

Five months after his marriage, Sade terrified and assaulted a twenty-year-old working-class woman, Jeanne Testard. Testard, a fan maker, had agreed to service a young nobleman. She was taken to Sade’s private house and locked in a room. Sade made clear to her that she was a captive. She was subjected to verbal abuse and humiliation. In particular, Sade raged against her conventional Christian religious beliefs. He told her that he had masturbated into a chalice in a chapel and that he had taken two hosts, placed them inside a woman, and fucked her. Testard told Sade that she was pregnant and could not tolerate maltreatment. Sade took Testard into a room filled with whips, religious symbols, and pornographic pictures. He wanted Testard to whip him, and then he wanted to beat her. She refused. He took two crucifixes, crushed one, and masturbated on the other. He demanded that she destroy the one on which he had masturbated. She refused. He threatened her life with two pistols that were in the room and a sword that he was wearing. She crushed the crucifix. He wanted to give her an enema and have her shit on the crucifix. She refused. He wanted to sodomize her. She refused. Sade threatened, harangued, and lectured her through a very long night during which she did not eat or sleep. Before releasing her, he made her sign a blank piece of paper and promise to tell no one about what had transpired. He wanted her to agree to meet him the following Sunday so that he could fuck her with a host inside of her.

On being freed, Testard went to the police. Sade was arrested, apparently because police interviews with prostitutes revealed that Sade had abused scores of them. Sade was punished because he had become careless in his excesses. He was imprisoned for two months at Vincennes in squalor most distressing to a gentleman. He wrote letters to the authorities in which he begged them to keep the nature of his crime secret from his family.

Sade’s abuse of prostitutes became so alarming that, within a year after his brutal treatment of Testard, the police warned procuresses not to provide Sade with women. Sade’s valet scavenged the streets for victims, some of whom, according to Sade’s neighbors, were male.

In 1768, Easter Sunday early in the morning, Rose Keller, in her mid-thirties, a German immigrant, a widow, a cotton spinner who had been unemployed for approximately a month, approached Sade to beg for alms. He offered her work housecleaning. She accepted. He told her that she would be well fed and treated kindly.

Sade took Keller to his private house. He took her to a dark room in which the windows were boarded and said he was going to get her food. He locked her in the room. Keller had waited for about an hour when Sade came to take her into another room. He told her to undress. She refused. He tore her clothes off, threw her face down onto a couch, tied her arms and legs with ropes. He whipped her brutally. He took a knife and told her that he would kill her. According to Keller, Sade kept cutting her with a knife and rubbing wax into the wounds. Keller believed she would die and begged Sade not to kill her until she could make her Easter confession. When Sade was finished with her, he took her back to the first room and ordered her to wash and rub brandy into her wounds. This she did. He also rubbed into the wounds an ointment that he had invented. He was proud of his invention, which he claimed healed wounds quickly. Later, Sade alleged that he had paid Keller to be whipped so that he could test his ointment. Sade brought Keller food. He took her back to the room where he had beaten her and locked her in. Keller bolted the door from the inside. She unblocked some of the locked shutters with a knife, injuring herself in the process, made a rope of bedding, and climbed out of the window and down the wall. Sade’s valet pursued her and offered her money to return. She pushed him off and ran.

Keller was badly hurt and her clothes were ripped. She ran until she encountered a village woman, to whom she poured out her story. Other women joined. They examined her and then took her to an inappropriate official, since the local magistrate was away. A police official called in from elsewhere took her statement. Keller was examined by a surgeon and was given refuge.

Sade’s mother-in-law, Madame de Montreuil, settled a large sum of money on Rose Keller to persuade her to withdraw criminal charges. Despite the settlement, Sade was imprisoned for nearly eight months …

In June 1772, Sade traveled to Marseilles with his valet, known as Latour. During the course of Sade’s brief stay there, Latour procured five prostitutes for Sade. Sade (in varying combinations) beat, fucked, and forcibly sodomized the women, with his usual threats of worse violence and death. He also had his valet sodomize at least one of the women and himself. In Marseilles, Sade added another dimension to his sexual repertoire: he encouraged the women to eat candies that had been laced with drugs. The women did not know what they were eating. Sade’s defenders claim that the candies were treated with a harmless aphrodisiac and something to encourage flatulence, which Sade found particularly charming. Two of the women became violently ill from the candies, had intense abdominal pain, vomited blood and black mucus. The women believed that they had been poisoned, and there is little doubt that had they consumed the quantities of the candy that Sade had wanted them to eat, they would have become deadly ill. One of the women went to the police. An investigation of Sade’s brutality with the five prostitutes — the forced flagellation, the forced sodomy, the attempted poisoning — led to an order to arrest both Sade and Latour. Sade, with Anne-Prospere as his lover and Latour as his valet, fled to Italy to escape arrest.

Sade and Latour were found guilty of poisoning and sodomy (a capital crime irrespective of force) in absentia. They were sentenced to death. In lieu of the death sentence that could not be carried out, the two men were burned in effigy.

Sade, with an end to his legal troubles in sight, intensified his pursuit of pleasure. He had a procuress known as Nanon find him five fifteen-year-old girls who were taken to Lacoste and forced to submit to Sade’s brutality. Sade’s wife was a participant in these new sexual extravaganzas. She became the prime apologist for Sade’s violence against the girls, even though, as one of them testified, Renee-Pelagie was herself “the first victim of a fury which can be described only as madness.” 3 Parents of three of the girls pressed charges against Sade, who refused to release his captives. One of the girls was horribly injured. She was sent to Sade’s uncle, the Abbe, to keep her from testifying against Sade. Renee-Pelagie did everything possible to keep a doctor from treating the girl, since evidence of bodily injury could be used against Sade and herself as well. Madame de Montreuil, perhaps to protect her daughter, joined with Renee-Pelagie and Sade to try to coerce the parents into dropping their complaints. Meanwhile, Sade forcibly kept the girls at Lacoste. They would be returned to their parents only if no charges of kidnapping were made.

Sade brought more women and girls to Lacoste. Human bones were found in Sade’s garden; he claimed one of his mistresses had planted them as a joke. Nanon, the procures s, became pregnant by Sade. Madame de Montreuil had a lettre de cachet issued for her arrest. Nanon was imprisoned; her infant daughter died at Lacoste shortly after she was born because the wet nurse’s milk went dry.

Sade was again threatened with arrest. He escaped again to Italy. The fifteen-year-old girl who had been most severely injured and had been sent to Sade’s uncle had not, in nine months, recovered from her injuries. She was finally taken to a hospital where the Sade family conspired to keep her from talking with anyone to whom she might reveal what had happened to her. By this time, the Abb6 believed that Sade should be imprisoned.

For a year, Sade traveled in Italy. He complained of being lonely. One of the kidnapped girls, still kept at Lacoste, died. Another escaped and went to the police. Against the advice of Ren6e-Pelagie, Sade returned to Lacoste. More women were procured for him. Sade kept spending money on women while Renee-Pelagie lived in near penury. He hired servants, locked them up, forced them to submit to him. A father of a servant hired by Sade tried to shoot him. The daughter signed a statement defending Sade. The authorities ordered the woman returned to her father. She was not.

Another attempt was made to arrest Sade. He hid. On being informed by Madame de Montreuil that his mother was dying in Paris, he went there. She died before he arrived, but in Paris Sade was arrested under a lettre de cachet. Madame de Montreuil had told the police Sade’s whereabouts. He was sent to Vincennes, where he was imprisoned for nearly six years. In 1784, he was transferred to the Bastille. In 1789, the people of France were near revolution. Sade rigged up an improvised loudspeaker from his cell and exhorted the people to lay siege to the Bastille. He was moved to Charenton, a lunatic asylum. On July 14, 1789, the Bastille was stormed and its warden killed. In 1790, Sade was released from Charenton along with all prisoners who had been imprisoned under lettres de cachet by the old regime.

During the years of his imprisonment in Vincennes and the Bastille, Sade wrote the body of literature for which he is best known (though his literary career did not begin in prison; he had done some writing and even produced and directed theatrical events sporadically). On Sade’s release, Ren6e-Pelagie, whom Sade had subjected to extraordinary scorn and abuse during his imprison- ment, left him and obtained a legal separation. Sade’s bitterness toward her was unrelenting. Apparently he felt that he had given her the best years of his life, which were less than perfect only because he had been maliciously persecuted. He especially blamed Renee-Pelagie for the loss of manuscripts that had been taken or destroyed during the siege of the Bastille. She had failed to rescue them, as he had demanded, and may have burned some herself. In the ensuing years, he set about re-creating the lost work. After his release, Sade also met his daughter as an adult for the first time. He hated her on sight. Early in 1791, Sade began living with Marie- Constance Renelle, to whom Justine is dedicated and with whom he had what his biographers consider a sincere, loving, devoted relationship. Sade was no longer a young rake. In prison he had become very fat, and the French Revolution had deprived him of his power as an aristocrat. Necessity, that fabled parent of invention, gave birth in a few short months to Citizen Sade.

For nearly four years, Sade walked a political tightrope. He played the role of one who had been abused by the old regime, who had no loyalties to the old nobility and was entirely committed to the new society. He made politically correct speeches, renamed streets to reflect the ideology of the revolution, and worked to keep his own property from the legitimate claims of the revolution and of Renee-Pelagie. According to his biographers, Sade’s essential humanism was demonstrated during the Terror when he was on a committee that passed judgment on the Montreuils: he could have denounced them and had them killed, but he did not. It is more likely that Sade, a consummate survivor, had understood that, during the Terror, guilt by past association could endanger his own life. Condemnation of the Montreuils could eventually have led to his own death for his having consorted with them.

Revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat discovered the nature of the crimes for which Sade had been imprisoned under the old regime. He denounced Sade but by mistake someone with a similar name was executed. Marat, although he became aware of his mistake, did not live to rectify it: he was assassinated by Charlotte Corday.

Toward the end of 1793, Sade was imprisoned. The charge was that in 1791 he had volunteered to serve the king. Sade insisted that he had thought the regiment in which he had volunteered to serve was Iqyal to the revolution. He remained in prison and in July 1794 was sentenced to death. The administration of the prisons was so inefficient that Sade could not be found. He was not executed. Later that same month, Robespierre was executed, and the Terror ended. Two months later, Sade was released.


It’s interesting too that Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones, in his chapter on de Sade in Sexual Revolution, paints de Sade as a leading light of the French Revolution and especially its disestablishment of the Church and aristocracy. But that’s another revesal, a similar reversal, in fact, to the left’s painting of de Sade as a revolutionary.

De Sade was a member of the Catholic aristocracy and raised by the Catholic aristocracy, and almost certainly sexually abused and tortured as a child by that same class. One can to this very day see a reflection of de Sade’s desecration of Catholic symbols like the Host.

One of the most disturbing stories to come out of the “Catholic abuse crisis” is a ring of three American priests who would befriend altar boys, demand they strip and “pose like Jesus on the cross” while they photographed them nude then “award” them with crosses and rosaries and other pieces of Catholic paraphernalia.

When one reads the brutality against priests during various anti-Catholic movements, from the Hussites to Spain in the 30s, reactionaries are quick to note a Jewish role, but always seem to forget how many of those raised Catholic participated in the worst anti-clerical atrocities.

Considering what we known of the Vatican in the Renaissance era, to the Catholic aristocracy (like de Sade) in pre-Revolutionary France, to the Catholic priests of Boston in the 1970s-2000s, it not difficult to guess where the murderous hostility by former parishoners towards the Church comes from.

De Sade is a product of the French Catholic aristocracy, ret-conned into a “revolutionary” by the new ruling class – and by apologists for the former ruling class. And now, considered some sort of hero of sexual liberty – even a FEMINIST of sorts, by the left and Hollywood.

Maybe Dworkin was right?

Sometimes Sexual Assault Is No Big Deal

I was sexually assaulted when I was about eleven years old by my best friend at the time. We were roughhousing, engaging in horseplay as we always did, and he pinned me on the ground and then, out of the blue, kissed me on my lips.

I didn’t know what to do or what that meant, so I did the first thing that seemed logical – I punched him in the face as hard as I could.

He got off me and said “ow!” and I got up. I don’t remember what happened afterward but by the end of the day we were friends again. It never came up, except for once, years later, when he mentioned it. I didn’t really want to talk about it as I found the whole episode rather embarassing.

Another time I was non-sexually assaulted; I went to an outside “kegger” with a friend, and as soon as I got out of the car, some guy who I had never met or seen threw a beer bottle right in my face and started screaming at me, daring me to fight him. He had a couple of his boys with him, and at two to four, so I slunk away, embarassed and ashamed. I brooded about it all night, sometimes making up heroic scenarios were I beat down the bully, but mostly I just felt weak.

If Ford’s testimony is 100% accurate – it’s no big deal. For her to nurse these childhood wounds is a symptom of narcissism, a classic tell tale sign. For most adults, the incident is a “life lesson.” The lessons she could have picked up from this is that sometimes people are violent, men can be sexually aggressive, and it’s not a good idea to get drunk around strange males.

Pound Me Too #MeToo is going to some strange places. Sexual misbehavior among teenagers needs to be dealt with by parents and community institutions like the church, when it becomes a political matter it becomes a criminal matter and that is a dangerous road to go down.

Hence, PoundMeToo isn’t going the legal route. Instead, they are settling for sub-legal punishments, typically involving getting people fired from their jobs, or never hired.

Jezebel.com lays out the plan, in their article The Next Step for #MeToo Is Into the Gray Areas

Jack Smith is a professional progressive that was just fired from the Social Justice Warrior company MIC.com after a couple of his ex-girlfriends/hookups got together and decided that he was “abusive” “coercive” and “withholding.”

They are explicit that they are not accusing him of doing anything illegal but instead “abusive” – not physically abusive, but emotionally abusive.

One women who claims she was in an active sexual relationship with him said, “he was sometimes emotionally detached, sometimes involved, and I got tired of the fact that he was obviously withholding things from me.”

Here’s a revealing statement from another of Smith’s lovers:

“I think that he has a pattern with women where he is able to figure out the thing that they are most sensitive and vulnerable about,” she says. “For me, that is that not only have I never been in a serious relationship, but just that I’ve never had like consistent trustworthy affection that I don’t know whether it’s gonna turn on and off at any moment. I think that he gave that to me for a month on purpose, and then only gave it back intermittently, like it was a game… After he groomed this part of me that is the most sensitive, the most scared, it felt like he then spent the next six months poking it, to fuck with me for fun.”

Playing head games is what women do in relationships, but it’s now quasi-illegal when men do it. If a woman breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s kosher, if a man breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s abusive, manipulative. You can get fired if your ex-girlfriend’s get together in their “whisper network” and give you bad grades. Bad in bed? Emotionally withholding? Too needy and clingy?

You’re fired.

This is what making the personal political means.

How seriously should we take #MeToo and feminism in general? Consider, that none of these sexual issues are new, they are as old as humankind. Human cultures developed – quite haphazardly – institutions and norms to prevent these sorts of issues.

One is a legal drinking age of 21. Another is the segregation of the sexes, both Kavanaugh and Ford went to single-sex schools. Ford herself points out that she didn’t tell her parents what happened because she didn’t want her mother to know that she had been drinking with boys.

But none of the #MeToo feminists are interested in, say, bringing back monogamy, an end to underage sex, and aren’t particularly interested in prosecuting teenager girls who drink illegally or sneak into parties with boys.

Imagine how comical everyone would find it if men started accusing women of being “withholding” and “emotionally abusive” because of a few weeks long fling that ended badly?

When Jessica pulled me into a closet in tenth grade and turned the lights out, wrapped her arms around me without asking and stuck her tongue in my mouth, I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with it. I wasn’t really that into her. Did I now owe her something? Can she, 30 years later, accuse me of being “withholding?” Can I get her fired from her job for showing no interest in me afterward?

People will rightly say, it’s different for boys and girls because boys are stronger and more violent.

Indeed, that is the truth. Boys are stronger and more violent than girls.

Hence, we have those rules – no underage drinking and no going to parties with boys.

If the feminists have any suggestions, they are free to make them. Typically it’s “teaching boys to not rape.” Our entire culture and society does, in fact, teach boys to not rape. So now they are expanding the definition of “rape” to mean not calling the next day, coming too soon, being “emotionally withholding” or making a woman “feel pressured.”

They aren’t going to be happy until all men are exactly the way they want them to be, from puberty to old age. Any breach of the protocol – which changes on a woman’s whim, over time even – is, if not a crime, nevertheless worthy of punishment by public shaming or getting fired from your job.

This is how American women, especially Democrats and the progressives, are choosing to exercise power – emotional public presentations, sexual vulnerability, and a “mean girls” sub-political network. This might be a good tactic if they could keep it focused on conservatives and Republicans, but by nature these women having to strike near, not far. So it’s blowing up the left itself more than anyone, even if Kavanaugh loses.

There’s no “solution” to this “problem.” Eventually people will get tired of listening to women bitch about their relationships – especially, women who are promiscuous and have left a string of sexual and emotional chaos behind them. Don’t be misled that the idea behind this is to “protect women” or even to punish bad men. No feminist will encourage, say, a return of monogamy.

They don’t want to “solve the problem” – they just want you to listen – and if you don’t listen sympathetically, you’re abusive, emotionally controlling and probably bad in bed too.

Gender Critical

I have a morbid fascination with the Gender Critical reddit forum. It’s a “radical feminist” forum, and many on reddit consider it a “hate sub.”

It really is just the female version of the “Red Pill” or the “Men’s Rights Activists” or even the “Incels.” They pretty openly hate men, and admit it in a way that the “misogynist” subs would never admit they hate women.

Many on reddit do label Gender Critical a “hate” sub, but not because they hate men – because they don’t consider “transgendered” men women. They refuse to accept the propaganda phrase “Trans women are women.”

Of course, it’s obvious that “trans women are women” is false. If it were true it wouldn’t need the “thought terminating cliche.” “Trans women” are just men wearing dresses. Those that undergo “sex reassignment surgery” are still men, just mutilated men, men with enhanced circumcision that have been poisoned with artificial estrogen – just like Alex Jones’ Gay Frogs, in fact. (OMG – ALEX JONES WAS RIGHT!)

I just can’t help but feel some sympathy for these women. They are right about “transgendered.” They are right about men’s “objectification” of women. AFAIK, homosexual men “objectify” men. It’s just testosterone.

So these women hating men for male biology really are the equivalent of men hating women for female biology.

The Gender Critics are also mostly correct about “gender” too. “Sex” is a biological reality, “gender” is a social construct. There is nothing “natural” about women wearing skirts – see Scottish kilts. There is nothing “natural” about women shaving their armpits or men having short hair. As someone once posted here, sex roles are not entirely socially “constructed” – instead they are socially reinforced.

Only women can nurse babies, so child care is basically a woman’s job – due to biology. Of course, men can take care of children – historically, men took charge or raising boys at about the age of 7. But child care is a woman’s job precisely because of the biology involved – and only ideological fanatics would object to that.

Ironically, it’s precisely at this point that the Gender Critical Feminists become the biology-deniers they rightly criticize the “transgenders” for.

What draws these women to radical feminism? Some perfectly legitimate objections to prostitution/pornography. But also some illegitimate reasons – such as their shallow hatred of men and their obvious agenda to recruit straight women to lesbianism. Lots of them utterly whine about being “invisible” to men as they age – apparently, they DEMAND male sexual attention, until they get it, then they complain about “objectification” – then when they don’t get it anymore, they complain about “invisibility.”

As they say, women want “fried ice.”

Occasionally, they will step right to the edge of racial reality – they hate men of color too – but they quickly correct themselves.

https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical

Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia on rape

So much great stuff here.

Paglia theorizes that men’s sexuality is intimately connected with the hunter/hunted predator/prey instinct. How anyone can observe human, even pets, or read a book, a bodice ripper, watch a romance film, and not understand this is shocking. As Paglia has often complained, a lot of these academic types are simply ignorant outside of their own extremely narrow field. Paglia tends to take her ideas from the perspective of the entire sweep of human history, from caveman times until today.

Peterson points out that those who accept “PC” political correctness doctrine have specific psychological traits. One, typically women – it’s women that internalize PC doctrine. This isn’t a surprise. Second, men and women with stereotypically “feminine” personality traits tend to internalize PC doctrine. Also, not a surprise.

But third, women with personality disorders tend to internalize PC doctrine. So we are not talking about healthy, psychologically adjusted women, but women with personality defects, women with difficulties in interpersonal relationships with men and women, women who are highly neurotic, paranoid, etc.

Again, this isn’t really a surprise to anyone but it’s nice to see it spelled out.

Owning, Spanking, and Tickling Women

Jim at http://blog.jim.com recently wrote an ignorant, deceitful, and completely bullshit article about 9/11. The commenters suggested that someone put him up to it. It’s likely a fair assumption he’s lying because he has to – he’s clearly not stupid enough to believe any of it.

But Jim has some things very right, especially on women. He writes constantly about spanking women, even beating women, and the nature of women and “Pauline marriage” – i.e., the Christian ideal of marriage that was commonplace until maybe 75 years ago.

I can’t help but be partial to a man who understands wife spanking as well as he does – and nothing is funnier to me than reading the comments of men shocked – SHOCKED I tell you – that a man would ever spank his wife, or otherwise dominate her in any way.

Cutting?

Cutting

We brand cattle and otherwise mark our property, and if you won’t brand your woman, say, tattoo your name on her ass, she’s like to do something awful like cutting herself. Don’t people realize that regular maintenance spankings take care of this? If they don’t get it in real life, they will read 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight and fantasize about it, or make up pornographic Fraternity Rape fantasies like that woman that Rolling Stone wrote about.

I remember the first time a girl told me she was going to kill herself because I never fucked her. We made out a lot, but never went all the way, for various reasons. So after I stopped paying much attention to her, she called me up one night and told me she had swallowed a bunch of pills because she couldn’t live anymore. I had to call her mom, who of course rushed her to the hospital. Trust me – it was a downer.

Then there was the virgin who after a few months of rogering in the back of her daddy’s SUV, told me what she really wanted was for me to tie her up, blindfolded, and rape her. Look folks – she came from a loving family with a doting step-dad (hmm… well she had never met her biological father. Um, never mind.) She was well-adjusted. My parents loved her and wanted us to get married. She was 16 – and at 16 she was already fantasizing about handcuffs and blindfolds. Sure, I did it, but my heart wasn’t in it – I just didn’t get it.

Another girlfriend – who was literally a sex machine that wanted to do it multiple times a day – she would push and push and push until I grabbed her and held her down and raped her – which usually ended with her smiling and humming to herself as she made us dinner afterwards. I may have had all sorts of second-thoughts and complicated emotional reactions about how I treated her, but she sure as hell didn’t. That relationship ended when I stopped – I just didn’t have the energy into dominating her all the time, and so she basicall wandered off. I was pissed, but instead of dragging her by the hair back to my place, I just sort of started ignoring her and we just sort of drifted apart. The after-break-up sex lasted a few more months but the spell had been broken.

Then there was the waitress who matter of factly told me to put my hands around her throat and stop her from breathing when I was fucking her. Not a lot, just a little. She didn’t want me to kill her or anything. She just needed to be immobilized to the point where she couldn’t even breathe, and that was enough to make her orgasm.

And spanking? Good lord. That even barely counts as kinky. That’s just run of the mill routine. Hair pulling? Holding her wrists down? They show stuff like that on prime-time television, it’s so commonplace.

I – of course – was writing about this stuff since before this blog, and it was a regular feature on this blog since the beginning, and I used to get hassled by the “BDSM community” for pointing out how politically incorrect – not to mention anti-feminist – this stuff really is. It points to an impulse, one that comes from millions of years of evolution, that both hard core feminists – and fake “Christian” Male Church Ladies want to pretend doesn’t exist.

50 Shades, of course, but back ten years ago it was “Secretary” – oh, man, you should have seen the ink spilled about that movie. It was hugely popular among the Fashionable Liberal Women set who watches indie films, but it was just so “problematic” they had to write about it over, and over, and over again.

Go back even more and it’s the Story of O. The literary types were adamant it was written by a man, but of course it was written by a woman – ONLY a woman could have written the story of O.

Hitting your woman with a stick

Jim may sometimes exaggerate to make a point, but the point remains. Women aren’t men. They don’t think like men, they don’t fuck like men, they don’t react the way men do. And most men don’t understand them.

The only time I ever lost a woman was because I *didn’t* rough her up, I *didn’t* take ownership, I *didn’t* claim her as my property. Women don’t want a boyfriend or a fuck buddy, they want an owner. Sure – lots of women would rather be owned by her boss rather than her husband, but Boss and Secretary is basically their second most common sexual fantasy, just after “kidnapped by a rival gang/warrior, and enslaved in the harem of a slightly but not too exotic foreign chief, where she fucks/births her way to the top of the harem.

Jim’s also right about race, which makes his cucking over 9/11 so much more disappointing, but I guess you can’t win them all.

its-funny-how-things-change-with-time-i-used-to-hate-taking-naps-and-getting-spanked-af8f9

Another Reason To Hate the (((Daily Stormer))) and the Clown Brigade: Misogyny

I think the Church and the family is the place to teach sexual morality.

I also think that various socially conservative blogs like SocialMatter.net do a good job of explaining the importance of sexual morality without necessarily resorting to religion.

I keep on being told that sites like the (((Daily Stormer))) are bringing in the “young people.” Which a quick perusal seems true, because they certain read like immature young boys.

And if you’re honest, you may remember that younger men tend to have some issues with being prematurely judgemental; being judgemental about things that they don’t really understand. It’s that old saying, when you were 16 you knew way more than you Dad, but once you hit 30 you realize that your Dad may have actually known a bit more than you ever gave him credit for.

do-you-still-beat-your-wife

So here’s a funny post. The set-up is some Jewess dating a “Christian” boy is having some domination and humiliation fantasies. It doesn’t read particularly authentic, phrases such as “I’m a dirty girl who needs your Christian dick in my Jewish pussy” seems a bit off, frankly. Oh, no doubt, there are Jewesses that really do get on off a forbidden goy boy toy. And domination and humiliation fantasies are not at all uncommon. Just recall in 50 Shades when Christian tells Anastasia, “I could expect high ideals, or I could debase you completely.”

Anastasia says, “well, I’ll take debasement.”

http://bbs.dailystormer.com/t/jewish-girl-has-sexual-holocaust-fantasy/46948

Boys don’t understand it because they don’t understand girls. Most men don’t understand it either because most men don’t understand women. Most women don’t understand it either because women don’t understand their own sexuality.

The only actually decent manosphere writer, Rollo Thomassi of Rational Male, explains two dynamics:

First, the war brides dynamic. Women have been the prizes in war for so long it’s impacted their evolutionary psychology. They expect the men to fight each other and whichever man wins gets them as the prize. It’s a powerful fantasy for them. A friend explained one of her earliest and most powerful sexual fantasies: two men were haggling over her. She was being auctioned off – a sex slave, a prostitute, kidnapping, whatever. Each man is upping the price, and when one finally says, “ten thousand dollars” – that’s when she comes. (A lot of money for a gal from her class background.)

Second, men are romantics pretending to be cynical realists.

Women are cynical realists pretending to be romantics.

Want to kill a romance with a woman? Buy her flowers.

Want to get a woman in the mood? Spank her.

spanking

The reason women freak the hell out about the concept of “game” and instead tell men to “just be yourself” is simply because they want to game men. They want men to “be themselves” so they can figure out the true alphas from the disgusting betas. If men learn to “game” women, it reverses the sexual roles and that is the least sexy thing ever.

Watch a Taylor Swift video some time. The hunky men in her videos never smile. They have dour, sometimes mean looks on their faces – when they aren’t arrogantly smirking.

Women aren’t men.

So it’s amusing to see Stormerfags – likely virgins – explaining why these sorts of BDSM fantasies that women tend to have are either some sort of Jew degeneracy, or the product of bad fathering.

Now read the idiot “Leon29” – not coincidentally, he’s using Crusader imagery and his tagline is “Kebab Removalist.”

This kind of spiritual sickness is what happens when your father doesn’t care one bit about you as a child.

This can also affect boys, and turn them into sub fags.

Remember this all of you who would be fathers.

And let’s make sure that 100 years form now sick white girls aren’t having European Caliphate fantasies.

Um – bad news, son. They already are.

He recognizes the pattern but can’t help but pathologize it:

A few days ago someone linked a post on an imageboard on /pol/ where black girls were fantasizing about being colonized by white men and having to offer themselves to save their tribe.

I’m dead serious.

At this point I’m not surprised. Woman are starved for true strength. Strong cultures naturally impose themselves. Cruelty doesn’t have to come into it (although it often does).

However, some good news. Some of the youngsters seem to get it:

Doctor_Mayhem:

For more fun and hilarity, find a pic of an attractive White guy on Google. Needs to be obscure, though. Just in case the slut is smart enough to run a Google image search. After that, you make a dating profile that makes it clear that you’re kind of a racist who only wants White women for 14/88 purposes. However, don’t be overtly 14/88, be very subtle.

Then marvel at the amount of nonwhite women who hit on you. Nothing women, especially jewish women, love more than that forbidden fruit.

BloodOvThor:

If only she was a none-joo pure white, the things me and her would accomplish in the bedroom…….so creative some would call it art lol

The ones that are giggling over the idea of humiliating the Jewess are the ones in the most danger, of course. They don’t get it. You cannot humiliate a woman sexually There is no “gross” or “humiliating” act that you can do that will break her – it’s you that will be broken. Her submitting to you sexually is her way of catching you.
spanking2

YOU are the romantic that will have feelings – maybe guilty ones, maybe not so guilty ones – about what you are doing to her. For her? It’s just a hot fantasy come to life.

You are the romantic, she’s the realist.

No – even the girls with the most loving fathers still have rape fantasies, humiliation fantasies, fantasies of being kidnapped and held down.

It is true, however, that the feminist types that are the most against “rape culture” and the like also “just happen” to be the most hardcore into it. Just like the men that see gayness everywhere are the ones that, well, see gayness everywhere (for obvious reasons.)

The woman who can’t stop talking about “rape culture” and how “humiliating” and “objectifying” culture is to women is the analogue of the men that are hyper-sensitive to anything that might be “gay.”

I was 17 the first time my girlfriend asked me to read her favorite erotica story. It was pretty basic “tied up and ravished” types fantasy. That was no big deal, I could see it.

But the girl that asked me to hold her neck so she couldn’t breathe – yeah, that was a bit disconcerting.

A little bit of spanking? Oh come up, that’s as funny as it is sexy. Although it’s crazy how turned on some women are by it.

It’s the ones that like to look at their bruises in the mirror, those are the crazy ones. Proceed with caution.

And never underestimate how vicious and manipulative a sub can be. Just because a woman is sexually submissive does NOT mean she’s a good person. Just because she wants to be held down and raped doesn’t mean she loves you. Never forget how conflicted a woman – especially, a feminist – can be about their own “politically incorrect” sexuality. That’s why the BDSM “scene” has all those complicated rules and why its so politically correct.

Really, telling young men lies about women’s nature is what really causes misogyny – the real kind. Actual hatred of women, not benevolent sexism or objectifying women’s bodies. When you are told all your life that girls are “sugar and spice and everything nice” – then realize women can actually be vindictive, jealous, petty, and quite often rather ditzy – it doesn’t lead to a healthy attitude towards women.

After all, a cynic is just a disappointed idealist.

In any case, I’ve always been consistent about this. The best way to keep a healthy relationship going is regular maintenance spankings. That’s the only way they know you truly love them – when you are willing to spank them even if they haven’t done anything specifically to deserve it.

It shows them that you care, no matter what.

20_analyst2

Trump Thugs sexually humiliate proud Latina Feminist Activist

http://www.f169bbs.com/bbs/news/244050-trump-thugs-sexually-humiliate-proud-latina-feminist-activist

http://www.reddit.com/r/breakfeminazis/comments/4hv4bq/candy_and_heather_thought_they_were_hot_stuff/

The humiliation these Trump thugs put Latina Feminist Leftist activists through is barbaric. To them Latina aren’t human. They chain her by the neck like she is an animal.

>law enforcement approaches curvy latina protestor
>officers glance at each other with a grin once they notice her supple breasts peeking out from under her soft shirt
>she glares straight ahead, committed to her cause.
>”you want to cooperate with us or do you want to do this the hard way?”
>silence
>so be it
>they handcuff her hands and legs to the van door
>They step back, grinning at her helpless situation
>an officer reaches out and squeezes a breast, saying “you asked for it”
>the other officer begins to rub her ass
>she remains silent, sweating. She can feel her pussy tingle.
>the officers step back and allow the crowd to jeer and laugh at her
>a gruff biker-looking dude steps over and lifts her shirt up, exposing her perfect round breasts.
>her nipples are fully erect but she stares straight ahead and whispers under her breath, “for Bernie…”
>another man pulls down her pants, revealing her sweaty, glistening pussy. It’s already wet from excitement.
>The officers step back from the scene as the large crowd descends on her and begins to molest her every curve, and every tender quivering hole
>she moans as fingers penetrate deep
>more and more people have arrived to watch, and some join in
>the officers walk away as hordes of men, cocks erect, descend upon this helpless handcuffed latina and ravage her mouth, pussy, and asshole
>they continue for hours until she is covered in pussy juice, sweat, and semen, gallons leaking out from every orifice
>her body is quivering from the countless orgasms she’s had
>“for Bernie……” she thinks, as a single tear slides down her face and another steaming load of semen from another total stranger is deposited into the back of her throat.

Never Stick Your Dick In “Mattress Girl” Crazy

Mattress Girl makes a porno.

http://thehairpin.com/2014/09/carry-that-weight-the-revival-of-feminist-performance-art/

He slaps her face, she asks her to hit her again, he takes off the condom and, er, penetrates her anally.

Peak Rape Culture

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/06/05/mattress-girl-emma-sulkowicz-just-released-a-sex-tape-heres-my-review/

In her words about this piece, she repeats the term “vulnerable.”

This is a fetish – it’s basic masochism mixed with a humiliation and exhibitionism fantasy.

http://news.artnet.com/people/emma-sulkowicz-interview-305268

http://vid.me/68ut

Have you ever actually had sex with a crazy woman? It’s both hot and disturbing. Not for the faint of heart. In the red pill post, someone linked to this porno:

http://efukt.com/21237_Anally_Destroying_a_Mentally_Disturbed_Teenager.html

I watched a few seconds but honestly the dirty talk was getting me a little aroused so I turned it off.

Crazy girls … it’s like riding a wild animal. I don’t know perhaps it is an acquired taste. So once I was fucking this Blondie, this hot young disturbed girl from California with a beautiful body and a cute laugh.

I’m fucking her and she’s moaning, “oh I want to feel you inside me without a condom oh god I want it.”

I was drunk, young, and stupid, so I pulled out, took off the condom, and went in raw. You know I was so well “educated” in “safe sex techniques” and birth control I just assumed everyone else was too. I could not imagine for the life of me any woman that would actually have sex with a man she just met that night unless she was on the pill.

So I try to pull out … and she seems to think that, you know, I slipped, so she grabs me and moves over a bit and sticks me back in … literally while I am squirting.

The next day she’s like all embarrassed and tells her friend (who introduced us) she couldn’t believe I fucked her without a condom. I’m like, “you crazy bitch you were literally asking for it in explicit language!” But she didn’t mean it, it was just “dirty talk.” Her friend was like “well she wasn’t very experienced and she’s only 18!” Anyway I never saw her again but I’m not “pump and dumper” – I would have kept fucking her every day if she hadn’t have disappeared.

Ah well, women, can’t live with ’em, can’t turn them over and give them a spanking without enthusiastic verbal consent and a notarized permission slip these days.

Back in my day the girls were hilariously slutty and half the time they would rape you! Our feminists were “sex positive feminists” which meant they were really kinky and into role play and stuff.

Moral of the story, always repeat the line “never stick your dick in crazy” while knowing full well you will if the situation is right.

Thus ends the story of Mattress Girl.

Pretty But Dumb

We had a puppy we described as “pretty but dumb.” She was a cute little bitch but was obviously not one of the smarter breeds of dog.

One of the worst things about leftism, in general, is that it provides really dumb people with an illusion of superiority. I always found it funny that people say that “racism is caused by ignorance.” It’s really the exact reverse; negative opinions about some racial groups are caused by exposure to that racial group.

In America, “the South” is considered “racist” and it just so happens that that is where all the Black people live. Southern Whites are not “ignorant” about Blacks, they have daily and continuous experience with them. If Southern Whites have negative views about Blacks, it is precisely because they know Blacks, they live around Blacks, and they work with Blacks. The actual people who are “ignorant” about Blacks are people in lily-white places like Vermont, where they likely have never even seen a Black person except on TV.

So anyway, some dumb teenage girl spent the last 48 hours jilling off to my spanking stories. She left twenty something comments on my various stories. Apparently, she followed the links from reddit’s hilarious and sometimes sexy “Break Feminazi” section, where I’ve posted a number of my spanking stories.

This girl runs a blog about serial killers and claims to enjoy homosexual rape revenge fantasy porn. In any case, she left this comment:

The world that we have now, where your boss might be a woman and the cop giving you the evil eye for speeding could be black, is not a world your kind can survive in.

You see, she’s accusing me of “racism” and “sexism” – as if I’ve never worked for a woman, or never gotten a speeding ticket from a Black cop. She apparently has a hard time separating fact from fiction, and seems to believe that my stories were about her – that may be more than just women’s solipsism, it might be full blown mental illness. She asked me to apologize – to her – for writing stories she shouldn’t even be reading.

She’s a feminist, quite obviously very conflicted about her sexuality and how rapey her fantasies likely are. But feminism has made her believe that she has something to say to the world. Since she knows about “feminism” she thinks she knows more than other people about women and men. I mean, this girl is likely a virgin, she may have never even kissed a boy. But because of leftism – in her case, feminism – she actually thinks that she could teach me – Hipster Racist, an adult man that has lived on three continents, traveled the world, made love to countless women, survived terrorist attacks, buried loved ones, and even created human life –

she thinks that “my kind” won’t survive the modern world because … sexism and racism.

Now, the young tend to be narcissists, it’s true. But in a sane culture, teenage girls would be taught by their parents and elders that lecturing adults who have more experience than them is gauche. As the old saying has it, better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you’re a fool rathern than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

But leftism – including feminism, which is just another form of leftism – gives young narcissists the idea that they know something more than their elders. Seemingly this was a product of the Baby Boomers, who for some reason believed that they knew better than their parent’s generation, then went and essentially screwed America up and destroyed their children’s generation. I remember when “Generation X” was all the rage, and the word was that they hated their parents and they scoffed at the “Sixties” and the idiotic values that that generation – the TV Generation, let’s not forget – brought with them.

Leftism arms idiots with a faux-knowledge. For example, they change words every few years and if you don’t know the newest phrases for something, that counts as “ignorance.” The term “Oriental” used to be a perfectly fine word to describe people from, well, the Orient, as opposed to the Occident. But that became politically incorrect and the term “Asian” became fashionable. So now if some older person uses the term “Oriental” the young leftists feel like they are smarter because they know “Asian” is now politically correct.

It’s even more ridiculous with Blacks. “Negro” was a perfectly legitimate term with no negative connotations whatsoever. But the euphemistic cycle kicked it, and it became Black, then Afro-American, then African America, now it’s “People of Color” – you know, “colored people.” Well, it’s ok to say “People of Color” but not “colored people.”

This sort of faux-knowledge really gives these young leftists a sense of superiority. It’s pathetic, and laughable, but it works in giving them “self-esteem.”