Catcalling is for Genetic Refuse

November 1, 2014

We are here for one reason — to fuck. The old DNA says “spawn or go extinct.” We may have frolics and detours along the way, to either make the rest of our existence more tolerable, or to make the entire group experience more likely to lead to success — and thus more fuckin’. This explains, to me, nature tossing in homosexuality, despite a lack of immediate reproductive benefit to the species.

So here we are, guys generally want to fuck anything that moves. Women need to be more selective, because they can only be pregnant by one at a time. It makes sense that the boys want to fuck more than the girls, until the girls find a guy that they really wanna fuck, and then they ovulate all over the place. There, life decoded for you.

So lets do an experiment: We have an attractive woman, perhaps wearing attire that is specifically designed to attract male attention. She walks down the street, and she gets all kinds of male attention. Then, she’s all pissed off that guys pay attention.

Fair enough.

I agree that a woman should be allowed to walk around with non-verbal cues that scream “I WANT TO BE FUCKED RIGHT NOW” and still, it is a desirable cultural norm that we don’t actually get to fuck her, nor get to treat her like she’s just there for the fucking (I mean, unless that’s what she wants). Consider me a feminist, I guess.

Now, does she have a right to an existence without hearing guys hoot, holler, and catcall? Meh, maybe. I’m a little on the fence about it.

Which means that I don’t really mind the anti-catcalling crowd exercising its First Amendment right to protest and criticize this practice. I just think they’re making everyone dumber with their approach.

But, sorry to mansplain it ladies, you’re doing it wrong.

The only time I’ve ever experienced anything like catcalls was when I was in my early 20s, walking through a neighborhood full of Brazilian transsexual hookers in Rome. I’m pretty sure that they were not being sincere about yelling “ciao bello” at me, so much as they just wanted me to spend 20,000 Lire on a blowjob. ‘Course, it didn’t piss me off, because I saw the logic in it. If a guy wants a blowjob more than he wants 20,000 Lire, it helps to know who would rather have 20,000 Lire than a mouth that doesn’t have someone’s dick in it.

Simple commercial speech.

Ok, so that’s not even remotely the same thing.

But, I still want to offer my assistance to the anti-catcalling crowd.

Catcalling pisses me off too. Why? Because I know it bothers women. I got a wife, a daughter, and a mom. Don’t fucking bother them, or I’ll punch you.

But, lemme cocksplain it for any man who still doesn’t get it.

Dude, you are correct. She would not be dressed like that if she did not want to attract male attention. It might SEEM irrational for a girl to put on a miniskirt and fuck-me heels, and then act all pissy if guys notice. There are two reasons that “you don’t dress like that to avoid attention, bitch” doesn’t work as an argument.

ONE: Women are allowed to be irrational. Yes. They are nucking futs. The sanest, coolest, most awesomest girl in the world will tell you that. Their system gets flooded with fucked up hormones on a regular basis, and they’re biologically supposed to be pregnant like 17 times in their lifetime. Now, you’re trying to fit THAT into modern society? Good luck making that work. They’re allowed to be crazy, because by all rights, they ought to be the ones running through shopping malls with machine guns. The fact that they just refuse to make any sense to your mind is pretty blessed mercy. Call it a win and move on. (And ladies, thank you).

TWO: Even though they’re allowed to be, THEY ARE NOT BEING IRRATIONAL, you dumb fucks. Because you know what? She is dressed like that to attract attention, just not from you, you lowlife prole piece of shit motherfucker. Ok? Do you now understand?

Yes, she’s wearing tight jeans to accentuate the shape of her ass because she wants a guy to notice that she has a nice ass. She’s wearing a short skirt because she wants a guy to notice. Or whatever she did to make herself look hot, she did do that because on some level, she does want a penis to come running after her, with its life support system (the man) attached to it.

BUT NOT YOU.

Yes, she’s looking to get fucked, but NOT BY YOU.

How do I know that?

Lets start by looking at the “harassment.” I use that term loosely, because it seems somewhat untethered from its actual meaning, sometimes. It applies to “get over here and suck my dick, whore!” (which in my humble opinion is clearly harassment) to “good morning” (which is not). But, see rule #1. She’s allowed to think it is harassing, even if all you say is “good morning.” She gets to feel how she wants to feel. If you don’t get that, you ain’t getting laid, because you’re a douche.

Yes. Exactly. You are ugly physically, mentally, and emotionally to this girl. EXACTLY. So now fuck off.

Yes. Exactly. You are ugly physically, mentally, and emotionally to this girl. EXACTLY. So now fuck off.

Yes, it makes her an uptight bitch if “good morning” makes her ass pucker in fear and anger. She’s allowed to be an “uptight bitch.” Because you know what “uptight bitch” actually means? She’s an uptight bitch TO YOU. You can bet your life that if the kind of guy she wanted, and she’s been looking for, said “good morning,” he could separate her from her panties in 4 hours or less. If she turns up her nose, all that says is “you are not that guy, get over it. Find someone at your level, because I am way the fuck above it.” She doesn’t “deserve” to consider herself to be better than you? Fuck you. You don’t get to decide that. It’s her vagina. Her standards. If her standards are unrealistic, she will figure that out. But no matter how low her standards go, she will never fuck the guy who catcalls her.

Never. IT NEVER WORKS, DUDE.

Now how about something a little less innocuous, but not awful. “Hey baby!” That’s one that some guys might try. Or whatever, insert catcall here. It doesn’t matter. Because if you have to resort to catcalling, by definition, you’re a shitty choice. You’re a bad mate choice. You’re not likely to be able to provide a comfortable life, good parenting assistance, or even interesting conversation in between bouts of coitus. You’re genetic refuse. Go jerk off into a sock until you figure out how to be worth more, dipshit.

I repeat: IT NEVER WORKS, DUDE.

In other words, yes, she has lovely plumage. You’ve strutted your stuff, and in 2 seconds, you communicated 4 billion years of evolutionary information to that woman’s ovaries — “THIS IS A BAD MATE, MOVE ON.”

IT NEVER WORKS.

And THAT is the message that you need to get out there, if you’re trying to end this kind of thing. Yes, yes, I know that every fucking Dworkinite out there wants this to be about the political construct of the phallocracy, or some other dumb shit. No. Its not about oppression. It is not about anything else but this very simple equation: These guys are doing what they believe is most likely to maximize their chances of putting their penis in that woman’s vagina. Somehow, they think that this will work. Guys would smear chipmunk feces on their faces if they thought it would get them laid. The ad campaign needs to be “IT DOES NOT WORK – IN FACT, IT ENSURES THAT YOU WILL NOT GET LAID!” There. Done.

Caveat: catcalling can sorta work – for bystanders. Its a great conversation starter. Dipshit says “hey, nice cunt” or something like that. Then, you look over and her and say “if that works, give me a chance to come up with something just as clever, ok?” She laughs. Dipshit leaves. You have just been dealt an inside straight. You take it from there.

You’re not going to elevate the social consciousness of the catcalling dumbass. They’re just stupid.

Stupid. Genetic. Refuse.

Their DNA is supposed to be left on the cutting room floor of life’s epic film. So, ladies, either just let that happen, or if you really want to convince guys to cut it out, you gotta speak to them rationally. Because guys are, if nothing else, rational, when it comes to getting laid. If they think it can work, they’ll try it. If they know it won’t work, they won’t do it. That’s the missing message.

You’re welcome.


Woman Charged Under Revenge Porn Law – Oh, Shocker

October 22, 2014
No I wd not cuz I no wut im talking about, LOL thx bai.

No I wd not cuz I no wut im talking about, LOL thx bai.

I hate the whole revenge porn thing. Not just that people do it, but I hate talking about it. Why? Because the whole subject just attracts bullshit like tourists with fanny packs attract gypsies.

One of the biggest sources of bullshit it attracts is the MacKinnonite-Dworkinite “legal scholars.(1) That’s the wing of feminist “thought” that sees everything in terms of “its the girls against the boys, and the boys suck.” They all banded together to make revenge porn a “civil rights” issue, and a gender issue, most inconveniently failing to investigate the facts.

They tend to see this as “a thing men do to women.” Guess what. It ain’t.

Here is how they look at it:

In 2009, Professor Danielle Keats Citron published “Cyber Civil Rights,” arguing, for the first time, that we ought to understand and address cyber harassment as civil rights violations. In that article, she called for a cyber civil rights legal agenda to prevent, punish, and remedy bigoted online abuse that make equality in our digital age “more of a slogan than a reality.” As she documented, the Internet has “all too often reflected and reinforced the offline world’s power imbalances.” Cyber harassers “raise the price” women, sexual minorities, and other members of historically subordinated groups “have to pay to engage with others on- and offline by forcing them to suffer a destructive combination of threats, reputation-harming defamation aimed to interfere with their employment opportunities, privacy invasions, and denial-of-service attacks because of their gender, race, or sexual preference,” she explained. (source)

That was stupid then, and it is stupid now — the notion that online harassment is in any way more focused on anyone by virtue of their race or genitalia. That might have been the case back when there were no women on the Internet. But, even then. Monica Lewinsky claims to be “patient zero” with this shit, and who was her key tormentor? Linda fucking Tripp. And case after case after case shows that harassers are often women, and frankly, more of the serious cases are involving women doing the harassing.

That is in no way intended to mean that I believe that it is 180 degrees from what the “Cyber Civil Rights” idiots think. They’re 90 degrees off, not 180. If we kicked all men off the Internet for a year, I would not imagine that things would improve, at all. Trying to make this a gender issue might serve a publication agenda — because academia loves that shit — but that’s the only thing it serves. It sure as hell does not serve any quest for truth.

So with that as a backdrop, we find this. At least one journalist seems surprised that the first conviction under Virginia’s revenge porn law is a woman. As she is someone whose exposure to revenge porn is probably limited to reading a few stupid blog posts and press releases, coupled with the male stereotypes that she probably carries (fairly, I suppose), her surprise is not all that surprising.

But, when we look at what happened here, is anyone really surprised? News reports about the conviction describe the perpetrator’s motives in pretty familiar terms.

“Waynesboro Police Sergeant Brian Edwards said, “What was the intent of Ms. Craig for posting this? She considered the victim a romantic rival for this one individual’s affections and she said that she did it out of anger.” (source). See also (source)

Yes, there are dickless creeps (I refuse to call them “men”) out there who are behind revenge porn sites, and who distribute the crap. In fact, I’m confident saying that more than half of the perpetrators are dickless creeps. But, a pretty good chunk of them are women — exhibiting some pretty negative feminine type behavior — the whole “woman scorned” thing is a rotten stinky thing. And, just like some people exhibit really shitty behaviors, which are more likely when you have XY chromosomes, there are other really shitty behaviors that come with the ol’ XX model.

So, to answer this bubble headed “journalist”, I will say “No, No I am not surprised.” What I am surprised at is that anyone still buys this bullshit simple narrative of its “boys against the girls.”

That isn’t helpful.

And, I won’t accept the opposite either. Any commenters who say “yeah, it’s all the bitches” can go fuck themselves in advance.

Curing ignorance. It is not really in vogue, but lets give it a whirl, if you’re not too busy.

Update: This sums it up perfectly.

Screen Shot 2014-10-22 at 2.15.40 PM

___________________
(1) For those of you who don’t know what that means, Andrea Dworkin and Katherine MacKinnon are legal scholars (I use the term loosely) who are alternately credited with the idiotic statement that “all heterosexual sex is rape.” While we are trying to dispel bullshit here, lets do that in all directions. Neither Katherine MacKinnon nor Andrea Dworkin ever actually said those words. The Straight Dope has a good summary of it — here, with links.


Temple of Sweetness

February 11, 2014

By Tatiana von Tauber

1933, child actress Shirley Temple

1933, child actress Shirley Temple

I grew up watching Shirley Temple as a child. I bet you did too. While we age and time runs from us, death of great icons really bring us something to be grateful for, to see our lives differently or to realize just how someone affected you, more powerfully than you knew. Shirley Temple did that for me. I’m so grateful to be of age where I will remember the sweetness of her childhood song and dance etched into my inner child. She simply brought pleasure to millions through an innocence that is lost so quickly among our girls.

I was born in Czechoslovakia and Shirley Temple’s position as US Ambassador to Czechoslovakia made her especially dear to my heart. I grew up in Miami in a predominately Latino community and in my neighborhood nobody heard of Czechoslovakia. “Checka-who?” In fact, I specifically recall my 4th grade teacher spelling it “Checkoslovakia”.

So, when the Czechoslovakian government fell in 1989, my birth country was finally in the news and in my mind, on the map. When Shirley Temple took ambassadorship, however, I felt especially proud. She added a magical quality of representation to this country no one seemed to know during my youth – and everyone knew Shirley Temple. And, it wasn’t so much that Temple was famous as was the fact that her presence, her history, her movies made people feel a sense of joy. Joy is good!

However, what Temple has achieved in her adult life is far more impressive than her child star success and her legacy extends far beyond her child star image.

Shirley Temple’s life achievements include:

- Ambassador to both Ghana and Czechoslovakia

- First female Chief of Protocol of the United States

- Acting as Representative to the 24th United Nations General Assembly

As a native Czechoslovakian turned American citizen, what an honor it was to have Shirley Temple act as a liaison between two lands that I love. More importantly, Temple was a graceful, feminine and intelligent role model to many women and little girls. Sadly, culture has moved us to Honey-Boo-boo, a poor quality child star. We can do better, can’t we? I think a little sweetness in little girls is just fine to nurture. Shirley Temple is a fantastic symbol to what little girl sweetness can become!

 


Knox. Knox. No Justice There.

January 31, 2014

By Tatiana von Tauber

What do you think of this Amanda Knox story?

I watched her interview here . It’s moving. I’ve been following the case for years and I empathize as sometimes facts lead to conclusions which create illusion, not truth and it is here we discover the depth of trust (and fault), in ourselves and our systems.

What is justice? Truly, at what level can another human being say “this person deserves x, y or z for punishment” and call it a day? Who is satisfied? What or whom does that “justice” affect and what is its effect? Will our community be better off with someone like Amanda in jail so we are safer or are we merely seeking justice built on what we believe a victim’s life is worth because it’s socially demanded we punish those who kill?

If Amanda Knox did aid in murder, has her emotional turmoil and years already spent in prison – in the battle for her freedom – not counted as “time served in prison” if prison is defined as a place of punishment? Has her particular suffering not counted as anything at all? For the Italian court to accuse Amanda Knox of guilt after innocence, and weigh a hefty 28 year term on her is so striking I feel violated and I’m just a spectator!

Let’s face it, society places value on murders. They happen all the time. Every day.  Why is the destruction of Knox’s life more important than the destruction of yesterday’s murderer? And what about tomorrow’s murderer? What is jail for? Is it a place to make another person suffer for their pain onto another or is it a holding cell to keep the rest of us safer? What factors determine when it’s both? Or is jail a place where we feel, as a society, a sense of accomplishment in that we are doing what we’re supposed to do to “bad people”? Is there hope to rehabilitate or only institutionalize?

I don’t know if Amanda is guilty or not. I do know that I find her to have suffered a good deal for the circumstances upon which she found herself. There’s a point where another human being should suffer for murder (Hitler comes to mind) and then there’s a point where another human being should be given reprieve when being played with like a pawn in a game and having clearly suffered through an aftermath of such accusation. How is 28 years more of prison time a case of justice served at this point in time?

Amanda Knox presents herself very authentically. Maybe she is faking it but to imprison her for another 28 years for a crime that’s been tainted is a crime onto itself. It is way too harsh and unreasonable. Consider that killing the enemy in war constitutes as justified murder – freedom fighting we call it – but Knox’s situation demands almost three more decades of her life? From an innocent verdict to “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”?  Should this be the perfect case of “let it go”?

Life gets complicated when you discover that human beings have varied value and thus death isn’t the most atrocious thing we can do onto another.  The freedom we are given should never, ever be taken lightly as that option for choice is always at risk of being taken from others. I commend Knox’s ability to stay so vigilant with her freedom at hand and it’s terrible to have freedom handed to you like a toy to jump for.

For Italy, home of the Vatican, to not be an example of forgiveness in the light of tainted investigations (and prior innocent verdict!) certainly seems in line with the church’s very own hypocritical philosophy. Italy should have risen above common human nature of reaction. Punishing Knox will do absolutely nothing to bring back the victim, show or teach a lesson that hasn’t already been shown or taught, nor will it contribute to Knox’s potential good, to which I believe Knox is capable of expressing given the opportunity.

By demanding to lock her up further, Italy has shown an example not of justice but “murder to the spirit”. Knox, if imprisoned, would be as lifeless as the victim in the sense that neither could flourish, live a life to better themselves or others and nor contribute to the world through the good that is within them because they weren’t given a chance. One loss of life is enough but when grounds are not certain, why not give benefit of the doubt and rise above human weakness? Sometimes bad things happen and while time is the best healer (and eye-opener), it’s best to move on quickly to weave those experiences into new creations. Give people a chance. Justice is a human construct and in the case of Knox, justice begs for reinterpretation.

Amanda Knox interview: (http://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-39-couldn-39-t-believe-hearing-071851472–abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1)


Comeback

January 5, 2013

Goddamn Sandwich


Sunshine is the best disinfectant – the Steubenville Rape Case

December 20, 2012

The mainstream media has noticed that something is amiss in Steubenville, Ohio. (Rape Case Unfolds on Web and Splits City).

And Jezebel gives credit where it is due — to a blogger who refused to let the story die. (We Wouldn’t Know About the Steubenville Rape Case If It Wasn’t for the Blogger Who ‘Complicated’ Things).

I won’t comment beyond my earlier post on the case, because I have been brought in to help defend the blogger.


Anonymous Comes for Hunter Moore – Moore’s Man Card Revoked

December 1, 2012

Anonymous has now targeted Hunter Moore.

In a release published today, Anon writes:

Greetings citizens of the world, We are Anonymous.

This is a call to all Anonymous worldwide, you have a chance to make a real difference in the lives of hundreds of bullied teenagers and protect them from real harm such as rape or stalking.

Hunter Moore, Founder of previous revenge pornography site http://www.isanyoneup.com is coming back stronger than ever from the shutdown of his previous website. This capitalist makes money off of the misery of others.

People submit pictures of others naked to his website and he posted their social networking profiles along with the pictures.

This time he is taking it a step further and plans to list physical addresses next to the victims pictures along with a map to their house, self proclaiming that he has singlehandedly enabled the stalking of hundreds.

His servers are up. he already has domains he is secretly testing and will go public soon. He hides behind a loophole of section 230 of the United States online decency act which states he cannot be held legally accountable for third party submitted content.

This is a call to all of anonymous. We Will hold hunter moore accountable for his actions, we will protect anyone who is victimized by abuse of our internet, we will prevent the stalking, rape, and possible murders as byproduct of his sites.

Operation Anti-Bully. Operation Hunt Hunter engaged. We are Anonymous, we are Legion, we do not Forgive, we do not Forget, Hunter Moore, EXPECT US. (source)

I applaud them for it. I do have one issue with the missive — I don’t think that Moore is as protected by Section 230 as he likes to believe.

But, lets set the legal issues aside for this post: Moore is a douchebag, and deserves everything that Anonymous may throw at him. Here’s why:

Once upon a time, girls weren’t all paranoid about being raped, having shit slipped in their drink, or being stalked. Then, douchebags discovered rohypnol, stalking, etc., which ushered in a new era of “Why has this asshole just showed up at my table with a drink in his hand? Does he think I’m an idiot?”

Now, thanks to these clowns, you need to convince the girl that she should have sex with you AND that you’re not going to rape her or cut her into little pieces. Girls who were once approachable are scared to death to even have a conversation with you in a bar. All because of douchebags who need to circumvent rejection with drugs. And stalking. Lots and lots of stalking.

The douchebag’s MO is to shit out a cloud of fear. That cloud of fear supports an ecosystem that only benefits two kinds of people — other douchebags and second-wave feminists who absolutely love women in fear, because it makes their bullshit message resonate with just enough terrified women to keep a few of them signing up for their classes. Never forget the best way to control behavior is through FEAR. Just like the TSA, fear creates a justification for existence. There is the implied message of “If you challenge me, I’ll fucking spank you, so you better choose wisely.” But, if you take away fear, the assholes evaporate.

Involuntary Porn sites (like those run by Hunter Moore, Eric Chanson, Craig Brittain, and Chance Trahan) are the online equivalent of the asshole who goes to a bar with roofies in his pocket, or who stalks a girl who won’t give him the time of day. They punish all women through fear because they got rejected by their high school prom date or some chick in a bar or…whatever. They get off on the smell of fear and the resultant power over a woman and this is the drug that gives them the warm tinglys.

Imagine if no women had to live in fear of a shithead ex-boyfriend or these dickless fucks. Forget the morality of what they do, if you want, and think about from a purely utilitarian / economic perspective. Without these nimrods, a woman would always feel comfortable letting you take naked pictures of her. Women would feel comfortable sending you those pics as a “hey good morning” present. More naked pictures of girls means a better world for everyone, in my humble opinion.

Real men don’t get off on scaring women. Real men get off on trying to take that fear away.

Not because we are nice, or chivalrous. OK, some of us are, but more importantly, it’s because we want more naked pics and Hunter More and Craig Brittain are fucking with that.

So fuck you, Hunter Moore. Fuck you, Eric Chanson. Fuck you, Chance Trahan. And Fuck you, Craig Brittain.

Any man who gets off on putting women in fear loses his man card.

Good hunting, Anonymous.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,087 other followers