Warren Farrell’s notorious comments on date rape: Not any more defensible in context than out of it

WArren Farrell ponders (possibly) the mysteries of consent.

Warren Farrell, possibly pondering the mysteries of consent.

NOTE: This is the second installment of The Myth of Warren Farrell, a continuing series examining Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, the most influential book in the Men’s Rights canon. You can see the first post here.

Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell has been accused of being a “rape apologist,” largely because of one now-notorious sentence he wrote in The Myth of Male Power:

We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.

This sentence is at least as puzzling as it is disturbing. Calling date rape “exciting” is pretty foul. But what on earth is “date fraud?”

To find out, let’s do what Farrell’s supporters insist we always do with his more troubling remarks: look at it in context to see if it is somehow more defensible – or, at the very least, to see if we can discern what exactly is is he even meant.

Looking at the sentence in context in  The Myth of Male Power, we find that it appears in the midst of a long discussion not only of date rape but also of a number of other dating-related behaviors that Farrell claims traumatize men in the same way date rape traumatizes women. So let’s back up a bit to let him spell out his basic premises — and define what “date fraud” is in the first place:

While the label “date rape” has helped women articulate the most dramatic aspect of dating from women’s perspective, men have no labels to help them articulate the most traumatic aspects of dating from their perspective. Now, of course, the most traumatic aspect is the possibility of being accused of date rape by a woman to whom he thought he was making love. If men did label the worst aspects of the traditional male role, though, they might label them “date robbery,” “date rejection,” “date responsibility,” “date fraud,” and “date lying.” (p.313, The Myth of Male Power, 1993 hardcover edition)

He proceeds from here to some Men’s Rights subreddit-style man-whinging:

The worst aspect of dating from the perspective of many men is how dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom – the social custom of him taking money out of his pocket, giving it to her, and calling it a date. To a young man, the worst dates feel like being robbed and rejected. Boys risk death to avoid rejection (e.g., by joining the Army).(p. 314)

I think Farrell is confusing “the Army” with “the French Foreign Legion” and real life with Laurel and Hardy movies.

Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape. (p. 314)

Yep. Paying for a woman’s dinner and having a pleasant conversation with her, only to have her refuse to have sex with you, is in Farrell’s mind just like being raped.

Having dealt with date robbery and rejection, Farrell  moves on to date fraud and lying:

If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying.

Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work with over 150,000 men and women – about half of whom are single – the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his. (P 314)

Uh, Dr. Farrell, I’m pretty sure that women are still allowed to say no to sex even if they are kissing a man. Either partner, of whatever gender, is allowed to stop sexual activity at whatever point they want to, for whatever reason they want to. That how consent works.

And now we come to Farrell’s famous quote:

We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. (pp. 314-315)

It still doesn’t make sense to me, but that combination of “date rape” and “exciting” makes me queasy.

Perhaps the rest of Farrell’s paragraph will help to elucidate what he means:

Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No”. They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women’s most enduring romance novels. (p. 315) 

Oh, so because some women enjoy fictionalized rape fantasies, real non-fictional date rape is therefore “exciting?”

Farrell follows this up, confusingly, with two sentences that utterly contradict one another:

It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.”  He might just be trying to become her fantasy. (p. 315)

Three things. First: If the “conflict” is as Farrell sketched it out above — a woman saying “that’s far enough for now,” while kissing with “tongues still touching” — there is no conflict. Kissing, with tongues or without, does not give a man permission to put his penis in a woman. Reciprocal kissing gives you permission for … reciprocal kissing.

Second: when the alleged nonverbal “yeses” and the verbal “noes” conflict – or you think they do – here’s an idea: RESPECT THE VERBAL NOES. Err on the side of NOT-RAPE. If she says no, assume she means no, until she uses ACTUAL WORDS to say yes. Strange but true: woman can actually USE HUMAN LANGUAGE to express what they want. If a guy doesn’t respect a woman’s verbal “noes” because he thinks — or pretends to himself — that she’s saying “yes” with her body, how exactly can the law distinguish this from rape?

“Your honor, it’s true she told me no, but her elbows were saying “yes.””

Also: if your gal and you want to play out “nonconsensual” fantasies, that’s fine; lots of people do that — consensually. You just need to work out the basic rules and safewords in advance. There are entire subcultures of people devoted to this who will be happy to fill you in on the details. Really. They are very chatty.

Third: Do you all find it as creepy as I do that Farrell tends to sketch out these various rapey scenarios in the steamy prose of a second-rate romance novelist?

If you’re an MRA convinced I’m somehow misquoting Farrell here, here’s a screencap of most of the passages I just quoted which someone on the Men’s Rights subreddit helpfully posted some time ago. Or you could get hold of Farrell’s book and check for yourself.

Oh, but I’m not done yet. I’ve got even more context to provide.

Farrell tries his best to draw some sort of distinction between date rape and stranger-with-a-knife-rape:

We often hear, “Rape is rape, right?” No. A stranger forcing himself on a woman at knife point is different from a man and woman having sex while drunk and having regrets the morning. What is different? When a woman agrees to a date, she does not make a choice to be sexual, but she does make a choice to explore sexual possibilities. The woman makes no such choice with a stranger or an acquaintance. (p. 315)

So going on a date with someone and ostensibly making a “choice to explore sexual possibilities” means that it’s ok for people to force sex on you against your will later in the evening? Uh, Dr. Farrell, how exactly is this not rape? How does the fact that two people went to a movie beforehand turn coerced sex into not-real-rape?

You’ll have to ask Dr. Farrell that question, as his explanation makes no sense whatsoever to me.

A few pages down the road, Farrell warns about the dangers of “date rape” legislation in hyperbolic terms, arguing, bizarrely, that it will lead to more rape.

If the law tries to legislate our “yeses” and “noes” it will produce “the straitjacket generation” – a generation afraid to flirt, fearful of finding its love notes in a court suit. Date rape legislation will force suitors and courting to give way to courts and suing.

The empowerment of women lies not in the protection of females from date rape, but in resocializing both sexes to share date initiative taking and date paying so that both date rape and date fraud are minimized. We cannot end date rape by calling men “wimps” when they don’t initiate quickly enough, “rapists” when they do it too quickly, and “jerks” when they do it badly. If we increase the performance pressure only for men, we will reinforce men’s need to objectify women – which will lead to more rape. Men will be our rapists as long as men are our initiators.…

Laws on date rape create a climate of date hate. (p.340)

I don’t even know where to start with all that. That is just one giant steaming heap of nonsense. To put it as politely as I can.

Oh, in case you’re wondering, Farrell also thinks that a lot of  what’s called spousal rape is really “mercy sex,” because people who are married to one another often have sex when they don’t want to — and that’s the way it should be, since “all good relationships require ‘giving in,’ especially when our partner feels strongly.” Sex you don’t want is just part of what makes a happy marriage happy!

The Ms. survey can call it a rape; a relationship counselor will call it a relationship.

Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen. (p. 338)

So, does putting Farrell’s “we called it exciting” quote in context transform it into something innocent and understandable and not-rapey?

I think it’s pretty clear that the answer is no.

But not everyone agrees with me on that. When someone on the Man’s Rights subreddit recently provided some of the context for Farrell’s quote, the assembled Men’s Righsters mostly thought what he was saying sounded fine to them, arguing that he brings up some very legitimate points, attacking feminists for quote mining, suggesting that “feminists don’t reality” and that the Feminist machine slanders anyone who gets in their way. Heck, one fellow even suggested that he had gotten the distinct impression that Feminists want to create more instances of “rape-by-misunderstanding” in order to punish men. Oh, and then one of them attacked my previous post on Farrell’s disturbing views on incest.

About these ads

Posted on May 3, 2013, in antifeminism, consent is hard, imaginary oppression, mansplaining, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, nice guys, oppressed men, playing the victim, rape, rape culture, reddit, the myth of warren farrell, warren farrell and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1,021 Comments.

  1. Radical Parrot

    Is the “determining gender based on how one looks at their fingernails” this thing?

  2. Radical Parrot

    Hmm, the link doesn’t seem to be working. Never mind.

  3. Noooo! I want to know how the fingernails thing works! I NEED to know!

    /tantrum

  4. Here is it: http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2005/08/27 it just got a stray ” at the end of the URL in the original link. And according to this comic I’m a guy. :D

  5. Radical Parrot

    Trying this again. I swear, I’ll get these links working some day.

  6. Radical Parrot

    Ooh, ninja’d with an actual working link. Thanks, Malitia!

  7. OMG I’m a guy too!

    … except sometimes I look at my nails the other way!

  8. Viscaria | May 5, 2013 at 8:46 am

    Talacaris’ problem is that he thinks choosing not to sleep with one woman is the same as choosing not to sleep with any women, because as far as he can tell, we’re all the same person.

    What are you replying to??

  9. I’d like to examine one of the paragraphs you quoted:

    (Introduction and disclaimer first: I am a 20-something male with a degree in Anthropology from a well respected university. I consider myself to be a feminist, but I am also a heretic in all ways of thinking so I often go against the grain.)

    The empowerment of women lies not in the protection of females from date rape, but in resocializing both sexes to share date initiative taking and date paying so that both date rape and date fraud are minimized. We cannot end date rape by calling men “wimps” when they don’t initiate quickly enough, “rapists” when they do it too quickly, and “jerks” when they do it badly. If we increase the performance pressure only for men, we will reinforce men’s need to objectify women – which will lead to more rape. Men will be our rapists as long as men are our initiators.…

    While I find his language and some of his terminology to be creepy, weird, and, well, rapey, I think that there is some truth in this . . . ignorantly stated and misunderstood, but nevertheless not a heaping pile of shit or something to that effect. First off, let’s eliminate the phrase “not in the protection of females from date rape”, that’s an objective not a method, and then look at his actual suggestions about how women should be empowered.

    –share date initiative taking and paying
    –decreasing admittedly real performance pressure (I’d like to propose the friendly amendment, for people of all genders and sexualities)
    –reduce reliance on male initiation in dating, and by inference generally reduce the cultural norm of men pursuing women . . . he might say it badly, but in my (quite extensive, but admittedly anecdotal) experience, this DOES lead to increased objectification

    I think these are all pretty reasonable suggestions, and ones that are much more realized today than they were 20 years ago when his book was written. Decreasing polarization of gender roles is a good thing, even when people who say lots of bad things also say them.

  10. So you have no idea what context is, interesting, nice cutting up half of these btw.

  11. @Jesus Jones, please feel free to post full excerpts, or even a summary. Just saying “nope” isn’t quite the same as offering evidence.

  12. I couldn’t agree more with Ben. Farrell offers a reason for the objectification of women that makes sense without resorting to ideas of male conspiracy. And I think every man can tell you that it is true, it is much easier in your head to be rejected by just a “piece of ass” then a smart, kind heated, attractive women. Now the question from here is do we blame men for cracking and not handling the pressure? Or do we understand the difficulties of this responsibility? Unfortunately I feel like the former is the usual for all things male but perhaps I am being too much of a cynic.

  13. What is WITH the necro trolls in this thread?

    RE: Ben

    The empowerment of women lies not in the protection of females from date rape, but in resocializing both sexes to share date initiative taking and date paying so that both date rape and date fraud are minimized.

    Uh, no. Just. No. Rape and paying for a date are not at all comparable, ya ass. Empowerment has nothing to do with it; it’s BASIC FUCKING SAFETY.

    We cannot end date rape by calling men “wimps” when they don’t initiate quickly enough

    Oh yes, that’s exactly what feminism is about.

    “rapists” when they do it too quickly,

    That’s not what rape is.

    If we increase the performance pressure only for men, we will reinforce men’s need to objectify women

    Yes, because that’s what feminism is al about.

    – which will lead to more rape.

    Wow, that’s not a leap of logic AT ALL. Seriously, buddy, your degree don’t mean shit when you’re full of it.

    RE: Papaya

    Farrell offers a reason for the objectification of women that makes sense without resorting to ideas of male conspiracy.

    Whoever said it was a conspiracy? We don’t honestly think there’s a cabal of misogynists, rubbing their hands together with glee and plotting the downfall of womankind.

    it is much easier in your head to be rejected by just a “piece of ass” then a smart, kind heated, attractive women.

    I’m a man, and I think you’re full of shit. If I can’t deal with rejection without turning my rejector into a piece of flesh, then godDAMN am I a shit-head.

    Now the question from here is do we blame men for cracking and not handling the pressure?

    No, but I don’t see patting them on the head and going, “Aw, sweetpea, it’s okay, I know acting like womens are humans is just SO HARD,” is any better. Men are humans, and I expect them to treat women like humans. If they can’t do that, I don’t feel any desire to coddle them.

  14. No, but I don’t see patting them on the head and going, “Aw, sweetpea, it’s okay, I know acting like womens are humans is just SO HARD,” is any better. Men are humans, and I expect them to treat women like humans. If they can’t do that, I don’t feel any desire to coddle them.

    QFT!

    Not getting the “Oh yes please fuck me!” message from every woman he ever fancied ever is such pressure on a man. My heart bleeds.

  15. Yeah, when I see someone dismissing a human being as a “piece of ass,” I don’t think, “Aw, they must be so disappointed at being rejected.” I think, “Jesus, what an asshole. No wonder they got rejected.”

  16. Ayup.

    Plus, “If she’s so negligible, just a ‘piece of ass,’ why were you so keen to pursue/date/haves sex with her in the first place?

  17. Ben, Papaya,

    I was recently strongly attracted to one of my biology professors. Since she’s single and we’re about the same age, I got to know her when I was no longer her student, and after a full semester had passed and I figured out that I like her as an individual, I asked her on a date. She declined.

    This was not the result of a character flaw on her part. Nor did it lead me to objectify her, or call her a bitch, or drum up some silly story in my head about how she’s obviously a heartless misandrist feminazi. I just moved on, cuz there are lots of other women in the world, and some day I’ll meet one who reciprocates the attraction.

    And you know what? My former prof and I are still on good terms, and nothing is ever awkward between us.

    So, pardon me, but I’m a man, and at a visceral level, I just don’t understand what the hell you two are talking about. I have never felt any of these things. There is no “pressure” on me, and there is no such thing as date fraud. And even if there were, it’s not even close to being comparable to date rape.

    Sometimes — most of the time, actually — people aren’t mutually attracted to each other. Most of us just accept this as a fact of life, and move on to try our luck with someone else. Maybe y’all should give that a try.

  18. Bob and LBT

    That’s great, good for both of you. I’m glad you are smart and confident enough to not be hurt emotionally from rejection. However the question was if it was EASIER to objectify somebody who you rejects you. I think Kittehserf illustrates this best, it is clearly sour grapes, something people are known to do.

    You need to understand I am not trying to coddle I am trying to understand and I think this offers a better understanding as to WHY men become this way so that we actually have some chance of changing it, isn’t that worth it?

    I think most of your comments reflect why I am so cynical about this topic. Basically all I have heard from you is “toughen the fuck up/ stop being a dick” which ironically sounds more like an objectification then a reason. So I am wondering what explanations any of you have for WHY men objectify women?

    Secondly and this is on a totally different line of conversation. Is there anything wrong with women paying for their own meal on a date?

  19. I should clarify that last bit because it is related although purely hypothetical. What do we loose by changing the social norms so that women pay for their own meals? Is it worth it if it can help women from being objectified?

  20. Secondly and this is on a totally different line of conversation. Is there anything wrong with women paying for their own meal on a date?

    No. But I have a feeling that the types of women who pay for their own meals on dates are the types most MRAs would deem not hot enough, or too feminist to date. They would prefer to take out the hottest,youngest woman they can find, and then bitch that she wouldn’t offer to pay for half the check.

  21. That’s great, good for both of you. I’m glad you are smart and confident enough to not be hurt emotionally from rejection. However the question was if it was EASIER to objectify somebody who you rejects you. I think Kittehserf illustrates this best, it is clearly sour grapes, something people are known to do.

    Rejection hurts. It hurts some people more than others, but the fact that it does hurt doesn’t in any way justify or explain where objectification comes from. Accepting that you were rejected in fact gives agency to the other person; they rejected you. If you ignore the rejection and just keep plowing on, trying to find some way to make the woman-bot output yes for you, I’m pretty sure that’s closer to objectification.

    I think most of your comments reflect why I am so cynical about this topic. Basically all I have heard from you is “toughen the fuck up/ stop being a dick” which ironically sounds more like an objectification then a reason.

    … How? How does that sound like objectification? How is that in any way analogous to “she was just a piece of ass?”

    I should clarify that last bit because it is related although purely hypothetical. What do we loose by changing the social norms so that women pay for their own meals? Is it worth it if it can help women from being objectified?

    Whether women pay or don’t pay for meals on dates has zero to do with objectification. Example: it is my friend’s birthday party and I pay for his dinner in celebration. Doing so does not remove any agency from his part, and does not turn him into a non-person. Doing things for other people does not reduce them to objects.

  22. Papaya. *Sigh*. I don’t think you are going to find anyone here who thinks that women having to pay their own way on dates is a great injustice.

  23. However the question was if it was EASIER to objectify somebody who you rejects you.

    I don’t fucking care if sexism is easier; it’s still wrong.

  24. I always think it’s funny when people ask that “who pays” in a feminist space, because you are almost guaranteed to get pretty egalitarian answers. Yet they always seem to think it’s a “gotcha!”

    My answer is based at least as much on socialism as feminism, since I think people should pay proportional to their (fiscal) ability, without regard to gender.

    Gotcha!

  25. I don’t fucking care if sexism is easier; it’s still wrong.

    This.

  26. MRAs who complain about this stuff seem to have a very rigid set of DATE RULES in their heads.
    The Man must always ask the Woman out on the Date.
    The Man must always initiate any escalation of intimacy with the Woman on the Date. The Woman will not tell the Man if she wants more intimacy, he will just know.
    The Man must always pay for the Date.
    etc.
    They also seem to think that these rules are bad, and sort of vaguely assume women are somehow to blame for them.

    So… just ignore these rules and have a good time? Actually ask your date-partner how zie feels about paying? If a woman is like “Well, a REAL MAN always pays”, then, maybe, don’t date her unless you’re interested in fulfilling traditional masculine gender roles? Make your interest clear and assume your date-partner is capable of making a move if zie’s also interested?

    And seconding Cloudia that income is a good general rule for who pays for stuff.

  27. Oh, yeah, the actual point.

    However the question was if it was EASIER to objectify somebody who you rejects you.
    Yeah it is. But that isn’t the Ultimate Source of objectification or anything. If a black dude cuts a white dude off in traffic, it’s easier to call him a slur, but that doesn’t mean that getting cut off in traffic is the source of racism. The question is why we have those sorts of dismissive, objectifying categories to fall back on in the first place, and why they only cut one way. And, of course, objectification of women happens all the time outside of the rejection situation.

  28. @Ben

    The empowerment of women lies not in the protection of females from date rape, but in resocializing both sexes to share date initiative taking and date paying so that both date rape and date fraud are minimized. We cannot end date rape by calling men “wimps” when they don’t initiate quickly enough, “rapists” when they do it too quickly, and “jerks” when they do it badly. If we increase the performance pressure only for men, we will reinforce men’s need to objectify women – which will lead to more rape. Men will be our rapists as long as men are our initiators.…

    We aren’t talking about the empowerment of women; we’re talking about stopping all rape.
    Of course the eradication of rape culture will empower women, but that’s another matter.

    Also, no one is saying that initiating too quickly is rape. The only thing that any of us has said is rape is non-consensual sexual penetration. Moreover, the whole feminist case against gender roles ensures that the high performance expectations put on men will also go away.

    As for this “need” to objectify women, it doesn’t exist, and it certainly isn’t caused by dealing with high expectations of performance in dating. The desire to objectify women results from a misogynistic mindset and nothing more.

  29. RE: Papaya

    I’m glad you are smart and confident enough to not be hurt emotionally from rejection.

    Don’t be absurd. Of course I’m emotionally hurt by rejection. What I DON’T do is respond by dehumanizing the person who rejects me. One is an emotion, the other is an ACTION. You’re conflating the two. I’m a grown man; I can control my goddamn actions.

    So I am wondering what explanations any of you have for WHY men objectify women?

    Easy. Some men ARE dicks. I can understand why; that doesn’t mean I approve or accept their behavior, and it’s not my responsibility to help coax them out of their cockbitery.

    Also, my local society often ENCOURAGES men to objectify women. This isn’t rocket science.

    Is there anything wrong with women paying for their own meal on a date?

    Of course not. Don’t be absurd. I go halfsies with everyone, except when I’m doing something with someone much wealthier than me and they offer to treat me. What I’m saying is that paying for a date is not at all comparable to getting raped. Again. Not rocket science.

    Nobody here thinks women should never have to pay for a date. You’re pulling shit out of your ass. We go through this every godamn time we discuss date rape.

  30. And I think every man can tell you that it is true, it is much easier in your head to be rejected by just a “piece of ass” then a smart, kind heated, attractive women.

    I’m a man, and I don’t think that’s remotely true. I’ve never once regarded a woman who rejected me as “a piece of ass”, and I can’t imagine ever adopting that mindset. Not least because it would implicitly involve admitting that I was only interested in her for physical reasons – and therefore, in sensing this, that she was amply justified in seeing right through me.

    Secondly and this is on a totally different line of conversation. Is there anything wrong with women paying for their own meal on a date?

    Nothing at all – but I’ve always discussed this upfront, with the result that we almost invariably go half-and-half. On a first date in particular, that takes a huge amount of pressure off and just means we can relax and enjoy ourselves.

    I’ve only had one partner who seriously thought that the man should always pay (even though she was earning more than me at the time), and that particular relationship didn’t last long, as it was clear that she wanted a far more traditional arrangement than I was prepared to provide. I’ll very happily foot the bill if my date is likely to have difficulty in paying a share, but I don’t want there to be even the faintest hint that I’m doing it out of an ulterior motive.

    But, as I said, we discuss this upfront – and much of the time it’s that that’s at the root of the problem: a basic lack of communication leading to misapprehensions and assumptions that aren’t necessarily shared. If I fancy someone, I generally try to convey this in a far more obvious way than paying her bill and crossing my fingers.

  31. Papaya,

    Here’s the point: no, it’s not “easier,” because some men don’t do it at all. A man who objectifies a woman because she rejected his romantic advances is already a misogynist for other reasons, and objectification is his default setting. He didn’t get to be a misogynist because of too many painful rejections; he was one long before he asked any woman out. And the key to changing that has nothing at all to do with who pays on a date.

    It’s especially presumptuous of you to claim all men can attest that what you say is true. Because, we can’t. Some of us, when faced with rejection, just don’t resort to objectification. And that’s true even of many men who aren’t smart and confident.

  32. And of course dating and who pays is the be-all and end-all of life, innit? It’s the ONLY area where men objectify women.

    FFS. To paraphrase someone on Pharyngula, I’m reaching terminal eye-roll stage.

  33. Like, I’m trying to imagine the gay context for this, and it’s just boggling my mind.

    Say my husband tells me he wants a divorce. Of course I’d be hurt. It’d be crushing. But the idea that I’d deal with it by going, “Yeah, well, you’re just a shallow, stupid piece of ass anyway! I never wanted you in the first place!”

    That’s absurd. Why on EARTH would I even GO there? How do I get from, “hurt” to “piece of ass”? The two things don’t even CONNECT in my mind.

    And if I DID start treating my husband like that, it’s not HIS responsibility to help teach me better ways to cope. That’s on ME. Again, I’m a grown man; it’s MY damn responsibility to go to therapy, or anger-management classes, or whatever. It’s MY actions, so MY responsibility.

    Seriously, Papaya, don’t treat me like a child.

  34. These whiny guys really do want it both ways, don’t they? They’re totes rational and logical and superior to the wimminz because of their manly man peens brains, and have no time for wimminz being all emotional and shit … BUT they also expect to be coddled and able to do dummy spits just like when they were two years old, because that’s about the age they stopped maturing and it’s the wimminz job to nurse their egos.

  35. Also, if I’m being rejected by someone who’s worthless, what does that say about me? If even the women who you despise don’t want anything to do with you…

  36. @Cassandra
    That is why I don’t understand why anyone would call someone a whore or slut when they get rejected. It’s saying that someone with no/low standards won’t sleep with you but zie is supposed to be the one who is insulted.

  37. Wow, he dared to suggest that if a woman really means no she’s not going to keep kissing you and remove herself from a situation.

    It’s almost like he believes women have agency. Something feminists have been denying for decades.

  38. If that’s all you took away from this post, I hope no woman ever finds herself alone with you.

  39. Now write what you just wrote here on your forehead with a Sharpie. After all, it’s only fair to warn people in advance about what an asshole you are.

  40. Did you actually read what he wrote?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,802 other followers

%d bloggers like this: