You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘RPOJ’ tag.
I’m not sure what the author of the review was thinking… Actually, on second thought I might have an idea – this is the liberal left dude deciding to be ‘edgy’ and take on an issue that feminists, especially radical feminists, like to rattle on about. One would hope that with a title of a book like ‘Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Chad Evans” one might, at the very least raise a cursory skeptical eyebrow at the presumptive nature of the work. Perhaps this is just my own bias showing through, but I think that it would be a good idea to least familiarize oneself with the topics at hand before presenting a review that would have worth to someone outside the liberal circle of ‘progressive’ dudes who think that they ‘get it’ and can speak with authority on the topic(s).
So there are two dimensions to this review of a review, the tone deafness of the review and the astonishing amount of cluelessness posited by the author of the book in question. Both will be tackled as the cocksure nature and faux-authoritative pronouncements being made about the experience of women in patriarchal culture – as interpreted by men – in this ‘review’ sadly illuminates how far we have to go to becoming a decent culture, and one that doesn’t rely on marginalizing half of the population based on their private bits.
The RPOJ cometh for thee.
The Red Pen of Justice has been under wraps for a very long time now and has been agitating to let loose once again on the blogosphere. I cannot deny the RPOJ discontents anymore, so gentle readers, suit up, sit back and prepare for a radical feminist analysis of the important words going on over at David Marx:Book Reviews.
“It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; which, for all intents and self-gratifying purposes, can more often than not entail the go-ahead (regardless of one hundred per cent consent). The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
*Blinks* On first reading I have no idea what the fuck he is saying. Let’s look again… Okay, this requires further parsing.
“”It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; […]”
Who said this and when? I think this defaults to what David Marx thinks on this particular topic, as no references are made to any relevant sociological source. This could be interpreted as David, with artless academic-ese construction, trying to authoritatively make a point.
My eyebrow raised because it looks like David is making the case for non-consensual relations somehow being a-fucking-okay because we can define consent out of the occasion. Funny how a review about the purported mythological status of rape culture is actually affirming its existence.
“The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
Sentences missing objects/clauses don’t make sense. Charitably, I think David means that the ‘go-ahead’ or consent is somehow related to what is agreed on in society.
“Either of which can, and often does trigger dire and detrimental consequences.”
I’m done playing parse the sentence fragment – make your best guess here – thanks Dave for being unfathomable in your writing style.
“That we live in a society, where so-called honour killings (usually by men) are on the unfortunate rise; and a vacuous dirt-bag of Tunisian descent feels it’s in his right to attack a mother and her two daughters with a machete at a summer resort in France – because, in his eyes ”they weren’t wearing enough clothes” – is a both a sad and a very, very serious indictment of today’s moral fabric.”
Almost always by men, as they are upholders of honour/subjugators of women. Why mention that the killer dude was Tunisian? One should try to curtail the impulse toward xenophobia and racism in a serious review. And how is this one incident a serious indictment of anything other than horror we all know and love as organized religion; the big three and the various tributaries of fail almost always reinforce the patriarchal status-quo. Name the problem Dave.
“The fact that such vile and callous behaviour is entwined with varying degrees of religiosity, only accounts for the latter being something of an idiosyncratically laughable indictment.”
So you spend the words to make a point and then dismiss it as ‘idiosyncratically laughable’ in the next paragraph? Coherence is a thing Dave, more of it would make what you’re trying to say easier to understand.
“Yet as Luke Gittos points out in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Ched Evans: ”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society. This is likely to have a significant effect on the young, who are often taught that intimate relationships are potentially dangerous”
What? A Jaw dropping non-sequitur after a word salad of an introduction, this review has legs!
Let’s look at the content after you massage your jaw for a bit, I should have warned you gentle reader, limber up those oral hinges it only gets worse from here.
“”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society.”
The fuck it does. The argument we live in a rape culture threatens the status-quo notion that women should always be sexually available to men. Rape culture threatens the normative idea that women are not really fully autonomous, that they do not share the same rights to their personhood and autonomy, rights that men, under patriarchy enjoy by default.
Problematisation? Is problematic too ordinary a construction for you? Jeezus. A dudes ability to fuck females with impunity is not synonymous with ‘intimacy’. Luke Gittos is riding high on the Misogyny Train, and a decent review would call his shit out for what it is.
Tell me Dave, how is treating a woman like she has rights and a full human being a fucking problem with regards to intimacy? It’s only suffers from ‘problematisation’ if you are in favour of the current toxic environment that women are forced to inhabit.
“If such is the case, which, throughout various parts of the world it most certainly is, does this mean intimacy and ultimately love, should be denied?”
If love and relations can only be had with the shitty patriarchal overlay that shafts both men and women, then yes it should be denied. But you are not arguing that, are you Dave, your faffing on with Gittos about how denying women their agency (consent) is making it hard for dudes to feel intimacy. This is a primal man-baby argument – if we can’t have sexy times *my dudely way* then everything is wrong with the world and the feminist sponsored end times are here.
“Immediately prior to the above, Gittos also writes: ”Recent decades have seen the expansion of the law around rape to cover many new areas of sexual behaviour. The impact of the hysteria around rape has been the shutting down of debate around this expansion and the demonisation of anyone who seeks to question it.”
Hysteria? Man-children really can’t help themselves when it comes to patriarchal tropes. But let’s get back to what he’s saying – the broadening of laws to protect the integrity and autonomy of women is making his boner sad. Gittos (emphasis on ‘git’) is also sad that he gets shit on for harkening back to the good ole’ days where beating and raping your wife was just the norm and everything was hunky dory – if you happened to be in the same class as Gittos…
“That the ”hysteria around the rape has been shutting” down it’s ”debate,” is surely cause for alarm, which to a certain degree, these 140 pages do tackle head-on. But, as Graham Matthews recently wrote in Will Self and Contemporary British Society: ”The language used in rape cases is of the utmost importance since, according to Lyn Higgins and Brenda Silver, ‘whether in the courts or in the media, whether in art or criticism, who gets to tell the story and whose story counts as ”truth” determines the definition of what rape is.”
Why in a review of the GIT are you talking about Will Self and Contemporary British Society? Is foisting non sequitur after non sequitur on your reader a stylistic choice? It’s a bad one, let me assure you.
“There again, as Luke Gittos has categorically stated in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth’s Introduction: ”this book is not about rape. It is not about the hideous criminal offence that takes place every day, and is the subject of arrests, court cases and prison sentences up and down the country […]. This book is about the contemporary panic around ‘rape culture’ that […] often bears little resemblance to the reality of rape.”
Translation: The idea that rape culture exists and is working in my favour is unpalatable to my sensibilities, thus the problem must be with the hysterical women and their risible claims… *facepalm*
“The argument of the book is that intimate life is suffering under the panic around rape and rape culture. This panic has arisen in the context of a society which is less sure of the parameters of intimate life than ever before. “
Oh consent is necessarily a roaring tempest filled with vapours purposefully designed to confuse the man-brained. The idea that women are struggling toward agency is an affront to needs of the ‘peen and patriarchy and must be done away with because my male right to unfettered access to female bodies is at stake – and this unfettered access – is what is important.
“As old narratives of intimate life die away, what has replaced them is not a new, individualised sense of what intimate life is, but a ream of laws, regulations, guidance and expertise about how we should conduct the most private aspects of our lives. This presents a serious challenge to the status of individual judgement about intimacy and, accordingly, the future of intimate life in general.”
I thought it couldn’t get worse, but Dave also seems to aspire to the swaggering, self-aggrandizing pile of mule-feces that Libertarianism is. Where white males are the only ones who can have the *true* feelings of oppression while simultaneously wielding power in society. If you cannot handle intimacy with a female that has autonomy and full human being status – then the only females of the blow-up variety will fit your particular bill. So go forth, find your inflatable Sally, and kindly fuck the hell off.
“Herein lies something of a literary juxtaposition, surely?”
*rolls eyes* – Dave, sounding smart and being smart have never been so clearly demarcated.
“For as pronounced and well analysed as this resoundingly tough and rather taurine book is, rape will always remain what it fundamentally is. Rape.”
A fucking equals A? This is the epic conclusion mic-drop you’ve assiduously been setting up. Step aside Machiavelli, Word fucking salad Dave is in the house! You are brought this review to close with a tautology? I have another for you, hold on it is earth shattering level of awesome – “stupid people are stupid people”.
And do you know ‘taurine’ means? It is a goddamn amino acid. Another meaning, common in the 17th century is ‘of or like a bull’. So is this a bullish book on rape culture, or did your thesaurus go to the dark side and led you astray with it?
“Regardless of judicial interpretation, sexual intimacy or, dare I say it, ”individual judgement.”
Did you eat alphabet soup and are just burping this shit up and then writing it down?
And also: Subjects, what the fuck are they?
The double shot of tautology and quasi-coherent sentence structure ends this review with an unsatisfying, stultifying dribble that offers offence not only to feminism, but the English language as well.
RPOJ out.
I cannot identify what it is with dudes and radical feminism. There must be some strange extra-sensory siren call that attracts dudes and dudely opinion to articles, blogs, and heck even just mere information about women speaking unequivocally about their experiences and analysis of society. Of course the attraction is just one part of this warlocks brew, the most infuriating part is that the dudes once attracted, have the overwhelming desire… nay with seemingly single-minded animus to grandiloquently extrude their man-centric opinion blithely into feminist conversation. At the very same time,said dudes, expect to be taken seriously with all the gravitas and respect they usually receive while intoning their manly wizdom.
Concomitantly, dudes assume that their experience is just the same as everyone else in society(??) and thus, without research or understanding, make pronouncements that, to the finely tuned lobes of radical feminists, sound like Grade A, First Tier, patriarchally laced bullshit. Once called on their bullshite phase two sets in, displaying in full glory the fragility of the male ego and the ensuing stampede, to either Godwin,Flouce or have a full blown mantrum as they exit from the thread. Let me assure you gentle readers, this cycle of male-fail is a most dependable and curious clockwork… But I digress. The RPOJ has leapt into my hand quivering in anticipation of the justice about to be dispensed.
Today friends we delve deep into the world of dudes explaining Radical Feminism AND misandry – all in one post – who would have known it was soooooo easy. Let’s put on our swashbuckling pantaloons and join The Brain in the Jar; hmm…lets tighten that up a bit and go with Shit for Brains (SfB); and watch as he puts on his Mansplaining boots and beats all your favourite strawfeminist arguments to death.
The original post by ‘Brain in a Jar: Of Radical Feminism and Misandry’ ,in all its glory can be found here.
—–
“Whenever I bring up the subject of feminism, I always hear about those crazy extremists who really are all about hating men. I’m sure they exist.”
Well if you only talk to other dudes and MRA’s why of course you are going to get a nuance free view of feminism and feminists. Looking beyond your own bias is hard, and who the fuck wants to do that?
“There plenty of crazy ideas out there, and misandry is actually saner compared to them.”
Awww! Lookit SfB put on this big-boy-boots of equality and deep understanding, to show how amazingly aware he is of what he’s prevaricating on about.
“Women are also parrt of the dating game, so the terrible of reality of people wanting to have sex with you but not be in a relationship must have taken its toll on some. The thing is, these people can never refer to an example of such a radical feminist.”
Editing, what the fuck is it? Also, did you catch the subtle(?) hostility toward women? I mean isn’t it totally obvs that women are in the position of power when it comes to dating and relationships? (*eyes rolling into back of head*) That whole male violence/rape culture stuff those feminists prattle on about sure clouds the issue about those bitches not knowing their place and bowing to my ‘peen.
“They also don’t see that misandry and feminism, even the radical version, are two seperate things.. You can point out misandry all you want, and if it makes sense I’ll get behind you. It’ll never be a solid criticism of feminism or radical feminism.”
Autumn approaches; the obnoxious university ‘Week of Welcome’ orientation drones are yelling insipid, yet inclusive, chants at each other; and of course, more stupid post mostly made of straw languidly emerge from the turbid depths of the wordpress “patriarchy” tag. Like appreciating the subtle fireworks of the turning of the leaves, one can appreciate the flawed assumptions and ignorance on display over at A Reasonable Faith. But Lo! The coming of Fall and the exudation of a steaming pile of Herp-Derp always leaves one gasping for breath at the enchanting majesty of nature in all her glory in the first case, and in wonderment at the raw-stupid on display in the other. (hurrah for awkward parallel sentence construction!)
Two concepts that will help us in our merry cavalcade of fail will be that of the (1.)Naturalistic Fallacy(with due consideration to Hume) and the concept of a (2.)Social Construct lets define them:
- The Naturalistic Fallacy – […] the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. Even more distantly, the term is used to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from the fact that something is “natural” or “unnatural.”
- Social Construct – A social construction, or social construct or a social concept is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society which exists solely because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to follow certain conventional rules.
Most of the problems with the post I’m about to critique will default to a lack of understanding of these concepts and how they work in our society. I would be remiss to also point out that there is, of course, a generous helping of strawwoman arguments that serve to undermine the authors arguments and credibility.
So let loose the doges of war, and we shall have at it:
“If there’s one truth that would impact culture for good more than just about any other if it were more male-female-brainwidely believed, accepted, and embraced, it’s this: males and females are quite different from each other. We are. And not just anatomically but physiologically and emotionally”
Sounds good right? Too bad its almost entirely bullocks. Let’s take a peek at what people who study sex and gender differences have to say:
“A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership.”
Hmm…it would seem that the some of the research directly contradicts your claim..but wait!!! There might be hope, there are differences!!!!
“Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships.”
Whooops… you’re still wrong.
“Hyde found that gender differences seem to depend on the context in which they were measured. In studies designed to eliminate gender norms, researchers demonstrated that gender roles and social context strongly determined a person’s actions. For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected – women were more aggressive and men were more passive.”
We could simply drop the mic here and be done with this piffle (flawed assumptions leading to flawed conclusions and all that), but where is the fun in that?
Let us soldier on brave readers! Bewarned and wary, forward we must go fellow travellers(of the loquaciously impenitent persuasion), to further reconnoitre this curiously(willfully?) ignorant realm.
Usually we get to watch loopy christians say loopy stuff in support of their sincere belief in magic here on the the Disservice. Not so much fun today as we are going to look at how belief in magic can warp the moral fibre of people into condoning rape and the abuse of women. Let’s visit our new shitstain friend over at Christian Husbands.
[ed. I’m almost done and I really need to put a trigger warning on this post because this depraved example of humanity has written a how-to manual on how to dominate and rape your wife all the while being at one with with the loving christian god. This dude plumbs the depths of atrocious human behaviour and morality with the robotic smiley certainty that only absolute religious belief can bring about. Consider yourself warned.]
“As Christians who embrace God’s Word as the guide for our lives, we know that the Bible condones sex ONLY within the bounds of marriage.”
For an all powerful being god sure seems to be obsessed with sex and sexuality. I’m thinking the all-father has no fracks to give about human procreation, priests and clergy though, do have a rather large stiffy when it comes to controlling their flock.
“Our culture’s acceptance of pre-marital sex has been one of the major contributing factors to the decline in marriage, and the rise in cohabitation rates.”
You see, my dear fuck-witted christian misogynist, that is a load of shit. Dudes have been procuring copious amounts of sex from women outside the godly bounds of marriage both before and after the “sexual revolution”. So your problem isn’t premarital sex or cohabitation, it is the unseemly idea that women have choice and free will when it comes to choosing a relationship and their mates.
You know, sort of exercising the type of freedom men have had since day one. This sort of base level expression of female humanity and autonomy – fucks with your shit – and now I sense you’re going to attempt to justify how awesome it was in the good ole days when men were people – and women were not.
“Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?”
Or why get angry and frustrated by vapid christian stupidity when there plenty of other worthwhile causes to spend one’s mental resources on?
Good question, but usually it is the unseemly mix of ignorance, callous piety, and genuine disregard for ethical behaviour that flips enough switches for your moral homunculi to say ‘jumping frog guts, batman! – this amount of aberrant stupid is intolerable – battlestations!
Let’s get this front and centre. Women are not chattel nor are they animals in the sense that they can be bought and sold. Women possess the same level of humanity and autonomy that men do. Our society is sloooooooowly starting to get the idea that we don’t have a second class of people (women). Retrograde biblical shit-lords like BiblicalGenderRoles (BGR) want nothing to do with respecting women and autonomy; especially women outside of their patriarchally approved gender prison.
“I can hear it now – “What about those boys! This is not fair that all the pressure is on the women”. Yes the Scriptures command BOTH men and women to not engage in sex before marriage, and yes they did speak to us as young men about being godly men of integrity, about being gentlemen. However, if you examine the Scriptures closely, you will see that God places the greater burden on the woman to refuse the man. “
The first rule of misogyny is to blame women for the crummy behaviour of men. Quelle surprise! BGR is already going there, let’s watch and see.
“In the Old Testament law, a woman could be executed for not being a virgin when she was married, whereas there was no such punishment for a man that was not a virgin. I realize this goes against our modern “gender equality” ideas, but the Bible supports no such notion.”
Well, looky here! My magic book supports my misogyny because 2000 years ago people treated eachother horribly. We should replicate those norms because they happen to benefit me! Of course…Shitlord goes for broke and continues with the bovine/human female comparison…
“But once you have bought the cow, you ARE supposed to get the milk for free
One of the problems we face today in the Christian community (but it certainly is not limited to Christians) is that often times, even after we have waited, and “bought the cow” (married our wives), our wives expect us to “buy the milk” as well. I recently wrote a post responding to a Christian teacher’s false belief, that in marriage men do in fact have to “buy the milk”(earn sex), even after “buying the cow”(marrying a woman).”
BGR is all about the marital rape. We will now turn to his ugly rape apologia backed up, of course, by those sterling ethical standards found in the bible, for the rest of this episode. If you were ever wavering on the idea that ‘religion poisons everything’ please continue reading and your doubts will be assiduously quelled.
“A quick word on the “cow analogy” before we continue – in no way am I meaning disrespect toward women, or saying that cows are somehow equal to women, or that women are less human than men.”
What is truly abhorrent is that BGR, the High Christian Shitlord of Asstainistan, is aware that he is making an odious comparison. He has enough comprehension and remains of a moral compass to see what he is saying is wrong and hurtful to others. Watch what happens in the next sentence.
“But Biblically speaking, a wife does belong to her husband (men paid a “bride price” and one the terms for husband in the original languages of the Bible is “baal” which means “owner or master” (e.g. Proverbs 31). I Peter 3 says “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord[master]“.
Did you see that?
Right there.
Right Fucking There.
That is how toxic religion is to ethical behaviour. I respect women, but my magical religious supersede any moral compuntions I might have and therefore she is not human and not equal, but rather she is property and thus should be treated as such.
(A small break while I gather my words and my amygdala calms down, lets look at some kittehs.)
Kitteh’s wonder how this dude can be so evil.
We’re always pointing out how crazy and terrible ISIL is with their savage acts against humanity, yet we have the exact same suspension of moral rectitude happening here for the exact same reason. Religious belief. It cannot be more starkly clear than what just happened above.
But hey, we need to get back to more biblical justification for immoral actions! Wheee!
“The fact is, in marriage, neither the husband, nor the wife, should have to earn sex. While husband’s denying their wives sexually is a problem sometimes, the vast majority of the time it is the wife denying her husband. Ask any pastor (and I have many pastor friends) and they will confirm this. Ask any marriage counselor, and they will confirm this as well.”
The fuck? You mean that woman are not machines you put kindness coins into until sex comes out? Unpossible!!! !!!
“But there is a difference between flat out denial, which some wives are guilty of, and a woman making her husband earn sex (but both are equally wrong). I once knew a Christian couple, where the only way the man got sex from his wife was when he did the dishes and picked up the house. For other men, it might be buying flowers for your wife, or taking her out to dinner. Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think it wrong for a husband to do these kinds of things for his wife, but these things should NEVER be a prerequisite to sex.”
Shitlord honestly believes that women should be subordinate to his penis. You fucking cave dwelling toad – women including your wife owe you exactly jackshit when it comes to sex or anything else. Your insidious world view precludes the idea that women are human beings that have say as to what happens to them. You don’t want a wife you want an obedient fuck-toy to take care of you and your important man-problems and now that women are realizing that submissive rape-toy is not their only role in life you are throwing a herculean mantrum because your ‘peen haz a sad.
You, DGR, are a pathetic, immoral, excuse of a human being, deserving of nothing but scorn and disdain. I happen to have lots of both on tap Shitlord, so lucky for us and bully for you.
“The sinful sexual pattern of modern women
Husbands listen to me, engaged men please hear me. There is a pattern that takes place in a lot of Christian marriages (and non-Christian marriages). At the beginning of the sexual relationship between a man and woman (which should begin after marriage, but sometimes it sinfully starts before marriage), women will give their husbands all the “free milk” they want. She lets him “taste the goods” so to speak.”
Oh, here we go speaking of patterns we’re about to set up the blame women for my important man problems (again).
“But not long into the marriage, the milk is no longer free of charge, it now comes at a cost. That cost looks very different from woman to woman, but there is a cost of some sort. For some Christian men, it might simply be household chores, for others it is buying jewelry or other gifts. For other husbands, it is making a decision the way their wife wants it, but they do not think is best.”
You mean that she probably has your children and house to tend to now and doesn’t have the energy for yoursexy times any more? Completely shocking that she has no energy after dealing with the kids and then going to work, and then coming home to the second shift, that she has no gas left in the tank to worship your ‘peen.
Breaks are required.
BGR you are a regressive antediluvian ass-clam. Access to pussy is not a fucking human right. Look down. You see that weird dongle at the end of your right arm – its your hand and magically, if you need to release your sexual desires it is just a rum-tug-tuggle away; as a special bonus you don’t need an oppressed class of people to help you do that (unless you are categorically pants-on-head retarded, which I suspect is the case).
How BGR writes is a special treat because he always says something absolutely terrible and then manages in the next paragraph to say something even worse. It must be a special power granted only to those of the Christian Shitlord persuasion.
“What all these different prerequisites have in common is, they require a man to transfer his God given authority over his home, his children, and his wife and yes even his wife’s body to his wife. Only if they do the bidding of their wife, will she give them “the goods”.
Repeat after me Shitlord – “My wife is not my property, she is not my fuck-toilet, she is a human being who has the same rights and bodily autonomy that I do, she “owes” me NOTHING”. In the paragraph above you are contemplating that fact that if you treat your wife as a human being you can’t dominate her and own her like slave. Not having a slave is making you and your ‘peen sad.
From the rest of us who still retain their moral compass: You, Shitlord, are a monster. Know that.
“How to stop this wicked pattern
For you engaged men, or newlywed husbands it will be much easier if you spot this change in your wife and nip it in the bud right away. If you allow this pattern to go on for years of marriage, it only becomes harder (but not impossible) to break. Whether you have been married 6 months, or 6 years, the fix is still the same.”
Shorter Shitlord: How to crush my wife’s spirit and humanity (this was so much easier when it was okay to beat women into submisson) and turn her into the fuck toilet you deserve. (Spoiler: The bible says its okay!!!)
“When your wife tells you “If you do ___________ for me, then I will do that for you”, you need to sit down and take out the Word of God. You must see this as God sees it, as an act of rebellion against your authority over her (and her body), and by extension as an act of rebellion against God himself, because he has given her to you. You need to rebuke your wife’s sinful behavior.”
I can’t even… Women are people, your failure to recognize this fact illustrates the huge gap in your ethics and your reasoning. You have no ‘authority’ over anyone. You are invoking you magic book to justify oppressing another human being. This is past heart of darkness level of depravity and evil. BGR, you need to seek help because you are failing at basic humanity and empathy.
“Take her to I Corinthians and read the Word of God to her:
“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” – I Corinthians 7:3-5(KJV)”
Scare tactics, shame, threats of violence are all considered abuse in this modern secular age. I suggest you get with the fucking program, despite the ‘wisdom’ of your magic book.
“The Bible places absolutely NO preconditions on sex between a husband and wife within the bounds of marriage (contrary to what many Christian books and teachers teach today). In fact the only mutual agreement a couple is called to is, when they STOP having sex for a given period.”
My magic book says that rape is okay, therefore rape is okay and should be encouraged… I’m going to start skipping some stuff as really, the theme that god says its okay to rape women is being done to death.
“After you confront your wife’s rebellion (not only towards God’s command to her, but by extension the authority he has given you) – she is not exactly going to be in the mood, if you know what I mean. It may feel as though you have been unloving to her, but you are in fact loving your wife when you call out her sin, and call her to repentance, just as God calls to all of us.”
After you berate and threaten your wife she might not be in the mood, go figure, you pernicious fuck. See how Patriarchy is interwoven into the very core of religion? See how tightly they collude to force women into submission. The House in Vegas is envious of this system that so effectively combats women’s status as human beings.
“Your wife’s rebellion against your sexual authority over her body is by definition “unrighteousness”. You would in essence, be “unloving” to your wife, from God’s perspective, if you allowed her sinful attitude to go unchecked.”
Gaa… Sexual authority? How about this, go fuck you and your ‘sexual authority’ sideways with the cacti of your choice.
“But should you still have relations with your wife after such a confrontation?
I believe the answer is yes, if she yields to you (even with the wrong attitude). When I first had to confront my wife with these types of issues, I would confront her, and then just leave the sex to happen another night, because after all, I like most men don’t prefer to have sex with my wife when she acts grumpy about it.
Holy fuck – you are advocating raping your wife.
But I realized that the sex still needs to occur, that sex is not about being in the mood, and it is not about feelings, it is about doing what is right. I agree whole heartedly that the best sex a Christian couple can have is when they are spiritually, emotionally and physically connected all at once. But the truth is there will be many times when we don’t have all that in place, but we must still have sex. God wants us to do the right thing, even when we don’t feel like it.”
You are a rapist. The authorities should be notified immediately.
“This probably won’t be a onetime thing
As a Christian husband, and really just as a Christian, we must realize that we all from time to time slip back into patterns of sinful behavior. Please don’t think that if your wife seems to submit to your sexual authority over her body after confronting her with the truth of God’s Word, that this rebellion will never seep back up again in her life. This has definitely not been a onetime thing with my wife, and I have also talked with other Christian men who have told me it is the same with their wives as well.”
This also abuse. Saying no to a sexual advance is NEVER sinful behaviour. Never ever. You are in this paragraph admitting that you are regularly raping your wife and using the bible to justify your criminal behaviour. I hear ISIL is looking for a few good men and let me assure you, you fit their qualifications admirably.
“Can my Christian wife ever say no to my sexual advances?
This is the logical question you as a Christian husband (or engaged man) might ask after everything we have just looked at. The answer to this question is a Christian wife should never give her husband a flat no, BUT she can humbly and gently ask for a delay. There may be legitimate physical or other issues that might prompt your wife to ask you for a delay. But this must be done humbly and respectfully, and always with the attitude in mind that her body does belong to her husband. But a Christian wife should ALWAYS make good on her “rainchecks” with her husband. Also these “delay requests” from wives should be the exception, and not the normal response to a husband’s sexual advances.”
Oh how beneficent is this? The sex slave can ask for a temporary halt to the rape train – how fucking convivial.
This person and their thoughts sicken me. This sort of attitude toward women has no place in a civilized society. This sick fuck should be in prison, end of story.
For more hilarity(?), see Violet Wisp’s take-down of this rapist’s post.
A kitteh pick me up before you go. See you soon. :)
One of the most refreshing experiences a feminist can be graced with, it is positively bracing I do declare, is having an entitled white dude explain to them what is wrongity-wrong-wrong with Feminism. I’m not sure what is more alluring, a dude’s decisive grasp of the basic tenets of feminist thought or their keen focus on what feminism should be about. Both are lobe expanding/enhancing experiences.
The influx of dudely commentary on the feminism tag seems positively correlated to the collective male apoplexy otherwise known as “GamerGate” a loose organization of dudes purportedly about ethics in game journalism (who the fuck cares about game journalism?) which, in actuality, is a movement committed to defending the misogyny that permeates much of gaming “culture”. The defense of misogyny in society is always accompanied by the harassment of women who dare to speak against the dude-approved status quo; let me assure you their is no lack of harassment toward females in this grand movement.
I digress from the twittering musings of the RPOJ, but I feel that a little background was(is) necessary to adequately frame where our next featured writer is coming from. Imagine, gentle reader: Hadrian’s Wall or the Black Gate from Tolkien, or even “The Wall” from Game of Thrones. Our dudely protagonist clearly places himself defending these bastions of masculinity against the ravening feminists hoards that seek only to pull down all that is good and just, not only the arena of gaming, but dare I say, the world. Our embattled protagonist must mount a fierce defense of his fiefdom as clearly, being in the majority, at the top of the social and cultural power gradients, basically the world being designed for him – is in moral peril of the threat of women being included in his world and being treated as human beings. This is a grave threat that cannot, nay… belay that, must not be ignored.
The fainting whirling you hear in the background is the stirring of the eyebrows of feminists who see this sad/enraging/sardonic (stupefying?) metaphor constantly being used by dudes to frame the oppression of men by the evil forces of feminism – only ruin can follow if the feminists are not put to a halt.
See if you can spot “The Wall” in the musty musings of this anal polyp also known as The Asylum. Our friend The Ass-Plum (I know, it writes itself some days) has written a real charmer of a post entitled “Fuck Off Feminists – part 1“. Catchy title, but do you think that with his laser like concision, our dude will stay on target and deal with this weighty statement with the due amount of charity and accuracy or; will he make shit up while beating straw feminism to death and recycle MRA talking points while talking through his hat?
The wiggling Red Pen of Justice cannot be forestalled any further – Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more. But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the kitteh!!
“OK so the title has probably got some people’s backs up, and to be honest good, as it will later be stated that those are the people who in fact just prove my point further.”
Fascinatingly enough, starting by insulting the group you’re about to pontificate about is a fairly common tactic. Do note that being as asshole is the Plan A here. Fuck discourse, fuck measured debate, and of course a heaping plate of fuck you to civility.
“Firstly, I am not for one second that the great voices of the female past such as Pankhurst should be forgotten, merely that the movement, along with many others, has now been bastardised beyond recognition.”
Nor are you keen with the proof reading, but full marks for telling us who women should venerate and who they should not – clearly within your dudely purview.
“I will take this moment now to state I am not going to use “scientific answers”,”
In best “Data” Voice: But captain, this is magnificent case of rectal cranial reversal! He is saying the facts of the situation don’t matter, but his very important opinion does. Oh, to what depths will you fall you magnificent Ass-Plum of a human being.
“I am merely using my site to state that I am sick to the back teeth of so many pro women feminists out there twisting every single article or statement into a debate about how women are suffering at the hand of the tyrannical male, newsflash – its people who suffer at the hands of people not just women at the hand of man.”
Those women. They are responsible for everything bad about the world, it is and always shall be their fault. Oh, and I’ll throw in some bullshit equality talk in a Pyrrhic attempt to make me look like less of douche.
“Oh, and by the way I am Not a woman-hater in any shape or form,”
Ah, then Ass-Plum dearest, how do you explain the title of this article? Hmm?
“nor am I deliberately or intentionally misogynistic,”
But if it happens, so be it? – *watches ass-plum shrug*. Yep, a true gentlemen we have here.
“however I do believe that no matter how much we advance there are always going to be certain roles that either Gender is predisposed to have a better “success” rate at.”
Really? And how would you measure that binky? How would you control for the wide variation in male and female socialization to be able to make that sweeping claim. And really gender is about oppression and is a societal construct that must be dismantled, along with patriarchy in order for our society to evolve.
““You don’t understand!” ” You’re just being a typical man!” “We have always had it harder than men so we are entitled to this attitude!” and the great one “we only want equality””
But Ass-Plum, **you** really don’t understand, you exhibit demonstrable white male privilege and entitlement and as we’ll see are generally clueless about the topic you’ve chosen to discuss.
” Well hello even a look at the dictionary definition of Feminism highlights just how warped the movement has become the correct definition being”
Ah, because the world is precisely demarcated by what the OED says, especially when it comes to complex sociological topics. Dealing with qualities that individuals possess though, woo, dictionaries are great take for instance this, as it applies to you (As an aside: since when does looking shit up in a dictionary qualify as ‘research’):
“ignoramus – [ig-nuh–rey-muh s, –ram–uh s] – 1.an extremely ignorant person. ” Well, if that isn’t you down to a “T” I don’t know what is.
Ass-Plum having at least a little bit of clue in finding definitions went to the OED, but was completely stumped by the second part of the definition he found.
“A ‘second wave’ of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood; seminal figures included Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer”
“So there in a nut shell is how warped it has become, the original movement was to give women the same rights as men – which is more than deserved and should not ever be thought of as anything but correct. However, then the second wave started promoting sisterhood, creating an “all girls together” us against the world, we can do as we wish and man has to put up with it, attitude.”
I hate to break it to you Skippy, but the the only ones who get to say when the feminist revolution is over are women. Our fruit-enhanced punter also seems to think that women organizing and displaying signs of solidarity within their class is a somehow a bad thing. He, like most men attempting to mansplain feminism, miss/ignore the historical relevance of what each wave brought/brings to the table. I’m not your history teacher, Grasshopper, read more about the Waves of Feminism here.
“Which is itself prioritising one gender at the disregard of the other.”
I see this so fracking much in discussions of feminism. What is “this”, well this dear reader is the dark shard of ignorance that drives so much of hot air that eminates from people when they have “serious” discussions about feminism.
It starts with a mindset that somehow the here and now that both women and men are treated equally in society. Evidentially speaking, this is not the case, see socialization, pay gap, harassment etc. Here is my theory – because generally many white dudes get a fair shake in society (that and having their norms reflected and embedded) they somehow think that others that don’t look like them, have the same experience.
The other aspect of why dudes say the stupidest things is a keenly developed ahistorical narrative in which the oppression of women is minimized or erased entirely. Please dudes just read History Matters and Against our Will they will serve as preventative tonics against you sounding so earth shatteringly ignorant.
“Not Equality and therefore not true Feminism, so to those who state read the definition, I Say to you, I HAVE.”
You sir, would not know Feminism if bit you in the ass.
“Further to that now I believe there is a much more damaging 3rd wave of feminists about who thanks to a friend who uses the term so well, we will
call “feminazi” and their intent is to completely reverse the times of old and create essentially a female controlled and led society where males are seen as a lower species. “
Wow, just wow. Because the liberation of women is just like Fascism!!! Right here, right now witness the manly construction of a straw argument. Third Wave feminism is about creating a society dominated by women, essentially replacing patriarchy with matriarchy!
Jesus-fuck. The hysterical men-children have broke loose because the big bad feminists are encroaching on their domain. By encroaching I mean demanding that women be treated as full human beings.
*sigh forever*
“You may think this is a bit of an extreme over reaction,”
No shit, Sherlock.
“sadly it is not, nor is the use of the word “feminazi” in fact you could dissect the word two ways and it would still make the current movement inseparable from the phrase.”
*thump* It was sound of hundreds of heads hitting hundreds of desks. But at least Ass-Plum is doing definitions again, as it has been so helpful to his cause…
“[1] Femi-Nazi – A movement designed to seek control over society, through manipulation of the community and through an environment of fear. “
Oh you mean like the environments women must navigate through *all the time* in society because their status as human beings is almost always in question?
“[2] Femin-azi – “A spin on Papparazi , the horrible scurge of the Human race who, think they have a right to invade people in their own personal space and spread some idle gossip or half truth in order to glorify themselves and or promote their own self-worth and gain, who will think nothing of terrorising and controlling individuals until they achieve their end goal”
Ah yes because men are regularly sent rape and death threats for speaking out in female dominated spheres of interest…
“See Both work.”
Both actually prove that the three working neurons you possess took the fucking day off.
” Not to mention the trivialisation of RAPE. Yes People, I said it, the worlds second most abhorrent crime is being trivialised by supposed pro equality and pro female rights groups, in many ways and this is a major worry for me. “
Wait, what?
“Sadly we will never irradiate this act but again,”
The rest of his commentary must be positively glowing with fact.
“Point One, it does happen to Men as well as women, there is no need to either hide or promote a “certain statistic” that will validate your claim, Rape is about power, Power is not gender specific, Sorry but it’s not.”
1.What about teh Menz!
2. Power gradients in society, what the fuck are they?
3. I know nothing of history therefore I can be this much of fuck-wit.
I need Ass-Plum to come up for air soon, the stupid is becoming suffocating. Power is not gender specific, also just in: The Sun orbits the Earth…
“If I go out and get a bit drunk and end up waking up next to a girl who I didn’t know the night before, then that is a pretty good night,”
Because your experience is everyone’s experience. Dammit, I’m going to need a heavy grade shower-poof to exfoliate all this dudely entitlement off.
“It is not me becoming a sex pest, if that was the case then most men in the world would be serial rapists, and again I state so would many women.”
Because consent is hard (?). Treating women like they were a part of humanity is not that big of a stretch, try it some time.
“People should not have to get written consent before every single act of a sexual nature takes place for fear of being put up on charges, and while im on the subject and just to clarify further”
Because making sure she wants to participate with you in said activity might ruin your boner. You can fuck right-off jerkstick.
“Anyway, basically what im trying to say, in my own clumsy way, is that Rape is a disgusting and vile act and the actual “act” should not be lessened by the over use or application of the word to situations that in fact are just “mistakes” or in some cases, Fun.”
Oh because those darn women mistaking rape for FUN! You contemptible asshole of the first degree. Your defense of rape culture is disgusting.
“Sadly, I am not sure how we can move forward from this, as it appears to just be another example of how modern day society is intent on tearing itself apart, however , let me try to put it to you really simply,”
We can move forward when dipshits such as yourself are struck repeatedly with a clue by four until you get some basic contextual idea of what is actually happening in society and not the nilly-willy full of shit-to-the-gills self-serving narrative that you’ve had excruciatingly turned to “11” this entire post.
“Does anyone have the “right” to be racist , just because they’re ancestors were wrongly treated?”
I don’t even know what this means. My best guess is Clownus-Maximus is trying an inverted racism argument because uppity black people/women/minorities disquiet his precious status-quo.
“Does anyone religion have the “right” to control other belief systems just because of theirs?”
Awww Br
o! Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? – And by get along we do mean the way in which society functions that continues to directly and indirectly benefit me (the great white-dude).
“No, and nor does any one GENDER have a right to Control the other.”
Ass-Plum, your ignorance must constantly endanger your life. Get yourself to a library, stat!
“Now, I could continue by going into the rights and wrongs of gender specific roles and situations, and how we as society create these situations ourselves, almost from birth, by the “preconceptions” of Boy is Blue, Girl is Pink, Barbie vs Action Man, etc,”
Oh god, please don’t! My irony meter just committed seppuku like three paragraphs back…
“however to be honest, im getting a bit hungry and tired now so am off to find the nearest Tavern and local wench ;) so that will have to wait,”
There are small mercies in this world, the firehose of ignorant bullshit has ceased. Hallelujah!
As a new added feature of the RPOJ we get a Shakespearean Insult hand culled from the internets.
Dear Ass-Plum,
See Above.
Have you ever met someone who initially, seems intelligent, but then opens his mouth and forcefully repudiates that notion? Well, that isn’t even close to the case here. The cranial-anal link here is strong with this one, so strong in fact, that stupid flows freely from almost every paragraph, every sentence – hell – every word screams, “I’m a vacuous cretin whose greatest achievement to date has been walking and chewing gum at the very same time.”
The Red Pen Of Justice has a savage wiggle on for Lucien-Maverick and the stupid shit he regularly defecates onto the wordpress #gamergate tag. In this post he manages to get just about everything factually wrong and manage to come off as a massive douche exemplifying how not to be a decent human being.
I know you are excited as I am to delve into this dark hole of stupidity and misogyny, so we shall not tarry any longer!
First off the title of the post: “Is the Puritan Feminist-Left Helping The Religious Right?”
Oh you know this is going to be good and filled with accurate depictions of Feminism. Let me assure you, gentle readers, no straw versions of Feminism will be beaten to death here…
“My cousin shared a rather interesting article with me today. It is from a VERY conservative publication called The Weekly Standard. This article talked about a concept called “Neo-Victorianism on Campus.”
Well, well, well. Using the Weekly Standard as your source already puts you firmly in stupid country. The tl;dr of the article linked is that we should be blaming women for male behaviour; case closed (you’ve been warned, the head to desk ratio is frightfully high following that link).
“In the article, they talk about a contradiction that they see on modern college campuses that plays into their hands. See, I have long made a point about how the Puritan Feminists have been making things worse for women.”
I really need to know what a Puritan Feminist is. Lucien-Maverick never really defines the term, but from the gist of what he says we can 
define a Puritan Feminist as any woman who dares to curtail the power of dude-boners.
“Now I was given a new perspective.”
Is it one that isn’t maxed out on idiocy and a palatable hate of factual information?
“It’s no secret that I am annoyed by the new campaign against what these people see as an epidemic of rape at college campuses. These people are delusional, and what’s more – their delusions are working against them.”
Oh, Lucy-Mavey! You just saved this article by not turning over a new leaf. Now muffin, you are the one who is holding on to beliefs that are not based in reality.
Rape is endemic on college campus and in society in general.
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).1
17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.1
9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.2
“One in four college women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime. These are anonymous reports on multi-campus surveys sampling thousands of college students nationwide (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). This rate has remained the same since studies in the 1980s (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewki, 1987).”
Looks like you’re the mayor of Wrongsville. Congratulations!?
“The article points out that whole movement for sexual liberation of women in the 60’s. It was a vibrant culture war against the prudishness of the 40’s and 50’s, running on the coattails of the larger culture wars being played out in the 60’s. This war got women to be able to be more sexually expressive.”
LOL forever. Vibrant culture war my ass. Dudes wanted and got access to women. This so called “sexual liberation” was cover for the reality of more dudes being able to dip their wicks into women without social repercussions.
Let’s be straight here, there were good glimmers for women in the 60’s, but good things started happening when women started organizing to protect themselves and promote their rights as human beings – a little movement you might have heard of – called Feminism.
“If only the women who fought those battles, who were worthy of the term “feminist” could see things now.”
Ah yes, because only with Male Approval can we identify the “true” Feminists. I’m not sure if Lucy-Mavey is being more stupid or more ignorant. I’ll let you, avid readers, choose his poison.
“With the Puritan Feminists on college campuses trying to make VERY strict guidelines and making those in positions of authority enforce them, we are seeing the liberation that so many women fought for being gradually taken apart, one rape allegation at a time. “
Whut? Are you really trying to say that codifying consent is somehow restricting women’s liberation? Why would women restrict their libert….. Oh wait…I get it now – If you replace “liberation” with “dudely access to pussy” your semantic confusion just clears the fuck up in hurry. How very noble of you and your crusade.
“Of course, that’s how it works nowadays. If a woman makes an allegation [of] rape, the Puritan Feminists and the public at large seem to take it at face value. “
Moving in this direction is a good thing considering the piss-poor conviction rates when it comes to rape and reporting rape. It’s almost like there is a systemic bias against women and their reporting of being sexually assaulted.
Hmm. The likely-hood of seeing their abuser walk free and the certainty of having their name and history dragged through the mud, women tend not to report being sexually assaulted.
“Why this is is beyond me.”
Sadly, you’re a fairly dim bulb Lucy-Mavey; this foundational truth is the cornerstone of the monument of fail you posted.
“The whole idea of “innocent until proven guilty” is gone. The article about UVA is proof of this. It’s now, “innocent until accused, which the social justice echo chamber will validate”. And if you think about it, it’s madness.”
All gone. The systemic privilege bestowed on males to rape nearly at will is in jeopardy! Who will defend this noble right?? Lucy-Mavey of course, because now his “rights” are in the cross-hair and that is a fracking big deal. (Never mind, of course, the rights of the women who have had their rights trampled on since, oh well, the beginning of civilization – oh no – we have to prioritize!)
“After all, they say that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted or raped. That would mean that 20-25% of women on campus are the victims of sex crimes. As my cousin pointed out, that would make both men and women very afraid of going to college, if this sort of thing was proven to be accurate.”
Women are afraid to go to on many campuses because the threat to their persons is real.
‘But it hasn’t been.’
Because apparently having a penis allows you to blatantly disregard the facts of a situation.
” The reality is that the 1 in 5 statistic is marketing. Brilliant, brilliant marketing. Something people forget is that most of the SJW women have degrees in Communication or Marketing or things like that. They know how to sell a product.”
Huh. Those communication and marketing degrees are made of pretty heady stuff. The assertion Binky makes here takes us, with certainty, into the tinfoil hat region of ‘rational’ argumentation.
“And the product here is – women are constant victims and men are bad. “
Well you’re half right, women are the majority of people who are sexually assaulted. As Rainn.org cites – 9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.2 No mystery there.
“The worst part about it is that they are using actual rape victims as props in a thinly-veiled misandry campaign.”
I’m not sure how this even works, but I do get that Lucy-Mavey is blaming women for the stupid shit men do. Oh hey! Misandry isn’t a thing. It cannot by definition exist as the societal systemic nature of society inherently favours, rather than discriminates against men. See this short informative video for further elucidation.
“I find that kind of sick, personally.”
I find that making a choice between a stinking sack of shit and you Lucy-Mavey, I’d choose the sack of poo every time.
“In the end, though, there is a much darker implication. Think back to the women who fought for sexual liberation. Now, think about the women who are trying to make women constantly afraid of men.”
Women should be afraid of men as they constitute the majority of perpetrators of violence against them. Lucy-Mavey doesn’t get causation.
“Women see men as the enemy and will do whatever they want in order to punish men for whatever the Puritan Feminists say is wrong, based on a crisis that they manufactured wholesale by using real victims as props.”
Wow, this is all about punishing men and playing the oppressed dominant majority card isn’t it? Enough men act shitty within the boundaries of society, thus appearing as a real threat to women, and somehow it is a crisis manufactured by women? Lucy-Mavey certainly goes to the venerated chestnut of misogyny – blaming women for men’s poor behaviour – with rabid commitment.
“Well, to men being in the Puritan Feminist Inquisition, where they can be accused of rape, because they didn’t ask a girl for permission at every single step of the process from kissing to getting their freak on. Yes, it’s a bold new world.”
What??!? Treating women as if they were fully human and their consent is required? Unpossible!
“The Religious-right should be in awe. I kind of am. “
Actually, I’m in awe of how much jaw-dropping stupid is being put on display by you Lucy-Mavey. Your dedication to the liberation of bonerz is admirable on so many levels…
“In less than 5 years, these people have decided to roll back all the work that women who actually cared about other women worked so hard to do. It amazes me.”
Who are these women who were campaigning so vigourously for their right to be fuck-toilets? It seems that more likely that seeing that the status-quo that favours your particularly odious worldview is being rolled back a bit and rather than up and up say that, you overlay your bleatings on women that simply do not exist.
“What it all boils down to is this – these people are manipulative con-artists who are using real victims as props for their own agenda. Or, in the case of Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian, they will exploit whatever controversy they can find in order to sell their line.”
Because receiving rape and death threats is “exploiting the controversy”. *Sigh*
Well, we should thank Lucian-Maverick for his important contribution(s) to the progressive egalitarian ideal.
On second thought, we should mock the glaring ignorance of this man-childe and rightly categorize his utterances as fool-fodder that can be safely ignored once properly ridiculed. Hell, lets let Willy S have the final comment on his character : “Thou are a boil, a plague sore, an embossed carbuncle in my corrupted blood.” (King Lear).
RPOJ out.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…