You are currently browsing the daily archive for December 15, 2013.
Oh the Kitteh Teasing!
This is one of those cases where all the hard work has been done for me. The train has wrecked, the roller coaster has cleanly left the rails, the cat has barfed on the piano. The fail is so densely packed into Matthew’s post that just unpacking it all might use up all the ink in the mighty Red Pen of Justice. Fortunately, as a teacher and feminist ally, I always bring several back ups because you can never overestimate how stupid people are. Let us begin, faithful readers, to tease apart this wretched hive of scum and misogyny.
“I Hate Teasing Whores” – (or How Yoga-Pants Destroyed My Life.)
(Wow, with a title like this, it must be a very important article filled with facts and deep truths about life.)
I saw a young woman in the grocery store a few hours ago wearing spandex pants that were so obscenely tight that you could almost see the outline of her _____ from the front. (I suppose the polite euphemism is “camel toe”.) (Lady parts are not dirty words – try Labia or even Vulva – but let’s not focus too much on your casual misogyny, bigger fish to fry, let me assure you gentle readers.) Probably the only reason I didn’t jump on top of her (Wow, you are just begging for a cookie here – you achieved the lowest rung of human decency – for the wrong reasons. Congratulations Dude!!) is because I’m pretty sure even women who dress like whores aren’t really interested in random sexual encounters, and I didn’t want her to freak out (notice that it is her fault for what HE does) and get me arrested and sent to prison (Unlikely as most rapists don’t go to prison, but here’s hoping…) .
– Just to clue a few of you women in (because mansplaining is always helpful), if you walk around in spandex pants, the first thing my eyes are drawn to is your crotch (if you’re walking towards me), and of course I look at your butt as you’re walking away from me (damn those women and their mind controlling trousers. If you only knew the POWER of the dark side Yoga Pants). I don’t know if I’m a “pervert” for being so interested in your genitals (Let me clear that up for you: “yes you are a pervert. Whew, that was easy.) or if I’m just a normal heterosexual male who likes _____ (Wow, maybe you should just make a cast of female genitalia and make sweet dude-love to that all day; everyone would win.).
It could also be that I’m sexually frustrated because I don’t have a girlfriend or a wife (because you’re a creeper. Pro-tip: If you think of women as people as opposed to fuck-toilet parts you may have more success.), but I don’t think using a casual girlfriend for sex would make me such a great person (no, you are already a very bad person, you don’t have to worry about minor shit like this.), and finding someone who’s right to marry (I’m thinking right now, potted plants are beyond the reach of your particular brand of ‘appreciation”. Maybe a pet rock?)is an even more difficult challenge.
Oh, watching porn does help alleviate some of my sexual frustration(because watching women being degraded and abused is awesome!) but not all of it (have you tried going lefty, *singing* ” OMG! It’s a whole new world!!!”). But wouldn’t it be nice if we could all live in a society where people simply dressed decently? (because how other people dress is your business…?) –
People didn’t used to dress this way (your grasp of the intricate notion of how fashion changes over time is clearly demonstrative of a keen intellect). Actually, to put it in perspective, think about what spandex pants are for a moment: you’re basically wearing panty hose without the dress (Damn, the dudely wisduh is flowing fast and furious now, this yet another example of a dude setting up women to be responsible for dudely actions). You’re half-dressed and almost naked (and that can only mean the person in question is a slut, amiright?). You might as well be covered in body paint because almost all the subtle curves and details of your body are on display already (and what is wrong with that?). But even women in aerobics exercise classes in the 1980s didn’t usually wear outfits this tight (dear Matthew would know as he has wanked over many 80’s aerobic video’s in his useful stay on earth).
Maybe I also didn’t notice back in the 1980s because I was just a boy and less interested in sex, but there’s still no reason to parade around in public with your genitals on display (oh but there is, the spooooooky miiiiiind controlling yoga-pants!). Normal pants should work just fine. I have run very fast (at top speed) many times in normal sweat pants while exercising, and they never hindered my movement at all. What other reason besides aerodynamics would you have to wear such tight clothing (nothing to do with societal pressures on women to look and act certain ways, it’s almost like performing femininity gets women cookies or something)?
Is it because you’re afraid you might gain weight and you want something that will stretch (fat shame much?)? Well, just buy some pants a couple sizes larger just in case (or pay the money for new pants if/when you gain weight)(mansplaination at its finest) instead of dressing like a whore and creating a sexual distraction (Okay this is totally a theme with Matthew, slutty whores and their magic hypno-pants defeat his brain *all* the time).
I find myself questioning my own conscience (how does one question a moral void?) when I see a woman who makes me want to just rip off what little clothing she has on and use her body for sex (because notes from your boner are totally more important that acknowledging someone’s humanity), because I actually do (believe it or not) have an innate respect for women (Matthew earnestly respects things he’d like to prong! Wow, the depths of that respect.).
I just hate people who tease (of course, teasing is being defined by you). Teasing is lying, and I hate lying. I want the truth (yooou can’t handle the trooooth!! – You’re a douche!) . It’s rude and dishonest when people go around advertising sex (and you know that how?) when in reality they don’t really want sex at all and would probably scream if you even attempted sex with them (women have mouth parts?? and brain parts attached to them?? In some strange alternate dimension I bet you could ask a woman if she wants sexy times or no … !!bzzzzzzzzz – yogapant-mind-domination engaged!! – those slutty bitchez just always askn’ for the peen!!).
Feminists are really delusional and selfish on this issue (as they always are when making the contentious argument that women are people), often trying to make the straw man argument that their bodies don’t belong to men (women’s bodies are not for the consumption of men, despite the historical and societal precedents). Of course your body doesn’t belong to anyone (oh, what this? It resembles a progressive non-douche laden point of view. “Quick! Set yoga-pants to emascula.…*reads next sentence*…never mind.) But your body does attract people. It attracts me (and I think the male body probably attracts women too, so it’s not necessarily sexist) (and it only for your attraction that the women whores do what they do…). That’s how natural, sexual attraction works (maybe in dudeocentric happy-fap-land, but in reality, oh reality my fap-happy friend, it is much, much, different).
We all have a mating instinct (we all naturually have toes and fingernails too, neither toes nor fingers entitle you to treat women as mere objects). (But men ordinarily have enough sense to not wear tight spandex pants that show off their genitals in public (thank you for explaining to women how they should dress based on important notes from your boner), and I’m not attracted to men anyway (because nothing is more scary than teh ghey secks!!), which is why I’m only criticizing women here once again.)
So, how do I reconcile my respect for women (!) with my desire to use this woman’s body for sex like a vicious animal (Sounds like another furious fap session is in order Mr.Pornsick-dude.)? I think maybe there are four types of females (and only one of your type: Doucheus-Maximus), and each brings out a different facet of my personality. There are: girls, women, whores, and teases (complete description of all female archetypes!! Achievement unlocked dude-bro!). I respect girls and women (because they dress and act decently). I respect them as much as they respect themselves. I even respect whores (prostitutes I mean) to a certain extent because they are at least honest and deliver on the sex that they advertise (for a price, but still they deliver).
Wow, if nothing else, Matthew embodies a keen respect of women and their humanity. Just not the slutty prick-teases with their unstoppable-mind controlling yoga pants of Doooooom *reverb*.
Lessons to learn.
1. Women are not responsible for your actions.
2. The judgements from your eye-penis are not valid outside the fap-o-sphere known as your mind.
3. Women are not responsible for your actions.
Finally the concise wisdom of Sinfest to close the post.
Update: A big thanks to John Zande for finding credible support for Matthew’s progressive views on the Womenfolk!
Another ardent believer in free speech, as long as you aren’t calling them on their bullshit, Gnyii has managed to append my last comment on a thread that, as usual with the deluded religious right, is strong with the fetus-fetish. Thus, in the interests of clarity, I’ll republish the last comment that I replied to.
Gnyii: “Given the level of your prose… I have great argument.”
LOL. You have great argument?
This is cliche liberal debate 101. It’s like you guys follow some kind of handbook on how to be an Internet troll. Step 1, make asinine comment on random conservative blog without actually reading the article. Step 2, attack the prose, grammar, or spelling of the original poster. Step 3, immediately follow up with bad prose, grammar or spelling.
Anyhoo, everything you stated in your response is fully and thoroughly addressed in my main article. It’s obvious you did not actually READ the article… that or you are so far entrenched in trying to justify murdering your own child that no amount of science or common sense will sway you. The humanity of the unborn is so scientifically established that to believe otherwise is akin to being a flat earther. But when it comes to justifying having your offsprings spine ripped out their skull to suit YOUR selfish needs, I’m sure intellectual suicide isn’t that extreme.
Anyway, go find some other blog to troll, I’m done feeding you. Your regurgitated and scientifically unfounded extremism has been addressed enough by me and at this point…. haters gonna hate, Proverbs 9:8. ;-)
Arb replies – @gnyii
Quite happy to let you leave this in moderation – This is just for you anyways :) (ed. and my readership)
It is fascinating really, when in the original article, you set the tone of what sort of response you are looking for.
G:”Petulant feminazis don’t realize that…”
Realize that you are not just talking to the rest of your ‘base’ high up on bullshit mountain, and if you start the slinging of mud, expect the same in return, my dear reality challenged friend.
G: “without actually reading the article.”
Why argue with stuff you pulled out of the right wing hate-o-sphere? Or did you want to cite the document where Planned Parenthood lobbied for children being able to express themselves sexually. I believe that you can’t, or won’t because the facts don’t seem particularly relevant to you.
G: “Step 2, attack the prose, grammar, or spelling of the original poster.”
Hmmm…let’s look at this exchange.
G: “And here I assumed everyone reading had an elementary school level understanding. Well, if your general education ever exceeds that of 6th grade biology, […]”
Arb:”Given the level of your prose, let me assure you, much less is necessary.”
Interesting it’s almost like you don’t see the savory hypocrisy in your statement. Of course, when you’re a denizen of bullshit mountain being right no-matter-what is the default setting. Just know that outside of BS mountain, we’re laughing at you. :)
G: “It’s obvious you did not actually READ the article…”
Again, poorly researched screeds are mostly boring (or did all those citations from the sources your claiming to quote disappear?). Concomitantly, your misogyny is nothing new under the sun.
G:”you are so far entrenched in trying to justify murdering your own child that no amount of science or common sense will sway you.”
LoL. You are calling the fetus a “child” and accusing me of being not following scientific facts? Not to mention the grand dramatic distortions, appeals to emotion that are so typical to anti-choice advocates when it comes to terminating a pregnancy.
G:”The humanity of the unborn is so scientifically established”
Wow, did you even read my argument? Huh, guilty of not doing what you accuse me of again. It’s very hard to take your sanctimony seriously when, after berating me for doing “x”, you go and do “x”.
Here is my argument. Try and read for comprehension next time.
“Women are autonomous human beings and have say as to what goes on in their bodies. It is absolutely their within their rights as human beings to decide to terminate their pregnancy, as it is their body. “
I never once call in question the humanity of the fetus. Assign it as much as humanity as you’d like. It’s rights should never supersede those of the women, as it is her body being used.
G:”But when it comes to justifying having your offsprings spine ripped out their skull to suit YOUR selfish needs,”
I know you’re just dying to show some fetus porn here, I can feel it. Maybe with the whingy caption “What about the Baaaaabeeeee?!?!?”.
Unlike you, I do trust women to make the best choices for planning their families. Also I arrived at that conclusion not having to consult any sky-daddies or related mythology to do so. Reality based argumentation is great, you should try it some time.
Funny how I’m almost sure you advocate for smaller government, except when its used to persecute women, then surprisingly, more government restrictions are a good thing.
Right-wingers and consistency – what is it??
G:”Your regurgitated and scientifically unfounded extremism”
You do know that “science” doesn’t have a position on abortion right? Science is concerned about facts, as opposed to the dramatic reading you’ve presented here.
G:”Anyway, go find some other blog to troll, I’m done feeding you”
Thank goodness. I’d hate for any of that reality based commentary to seep into your world view. Dangerous stuff.
*****
Sadly, this is almost always the way these conversations go when it comes to the attack on women and their reproductive rights.
Religiously deluded, bigoted, right-wingnuts say the darndest things. Just the other day, Manitoban PC leader Brian Pallister wished the very best to “all you infidel atheists out there”.
Say again?
“All you infidel atheists”
He didn’t say that.
He really did. On camera. Check the vid.
Pretty amazing, right? But it gets even better. This video spurred an understandably unfavourable response from the secular community. Pallister did have some defenders though. They suggested that it was a joke, albeit in bad taste. Damn liberal media sheep, they whine that the poor conservatives are too uptight, but as soon as one delivers a little joke, they get all offended. Except that it wasn’t a joke – not that it would actually excuse this if it was.
Later, in a response to the fallout of his holiday greeting, Pallister defended his wording by stating that, according to the dictionary, ‘infidel’ means ‘non-believer’. He was just being inclusive. “I’m always disappointed when people misrepresent the meaning of the words. What I was trying to do there is include everyone in my best wishes over the holidays” Riiiiiiiight. Let’s explore why this is total bullshit.
First, no one identifies as an ‘infidel’. Quite a few non-believers don’t even identify as an ‘atheist’. I mean, sure, I’m also a non-stamp-collector, but it has no inherent meaning to me. However, if people were being ostracized, abused, discriminated against, and even killed because they didn’t collect stamps, I’d have to speak up as a non-stamp-collector too. So saying that he was trying to include ‘infidels’ when the only people who think the term means anything are non-infidels, is beyond suspicious. It is a blatant affirmation of the religious ‘us vs. them’ mentality.
Second, whereas ‘atheist’ is purely descriptive – absence of theism, ‘infidel’ is riddled with negative overtones. Sure one of the definitions listed in the dictionary is simply ‘one who doesn’t believe’, but dictionaries aren’t known for deep explorations into connotation or social context. ‘Infidel’ is the name that members of an in-group call members of the out-group. It is a term meant to belittle, demean, and undervalue. An atheist is a non believer, period. An infidel is a non believer, understood as an unworthy subhuman piece of filth. Pallister’s comment is analogous to someone attempting to be “racially inclusive” by using the word ‘nigger’ then defending the slur by saying that it just means ‘people with dark skin’. No, it’s offensive, divisive, and hateful, I don’t care how happy the surrounding message is. And Pallister knows it.
If he really thought ‘atheist’ and ‘infidel’ were as synonymous as he claims, then there would be no reason to use both words. Pallister’s defence is that all he meant to say was ‘non-believing non-believers’. There is no justification for such a redundancy. The negative hateful baggage is jammed right into the word ‘infidel’ and it is the only reason for Pallister to have used it. I am willing to concede that it may not have been a conscious decision, not that it would be a redeeming admission. It would mean that his religious elitism is so ingrained that he automatically demeans the irreligious without thinking about it.
If he was just some guy, Pallister’s words would just make him an asshole in need of good chewing out. But the standards for our elected officials is higher than that. Especially in a country that thankfully separates church and state, such a slur should be met with much harsher repercussions. Manitobans, please see too it he is not re-elected. Manitoban conservatives, get him evicted from your party. If you ever want to be in power in Manitoba again, step 1 would be to distance yourselves from ignorant jackasses like Brian Pallister.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…