Category Archives: pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles
Is the disgusting manosphere blogger LaidNYC actually the disgusting manosphere blogger Matt Forney?
So, I’ve written about the terrible “game” blogger LaidNYC several times already because the fellow is such a reliable purveyor of terrible what-the-fuckery — what with his weird fixation on the alleged value of his sperm, his creepy obsession with underage girls, and his overall awfulness as a human being. I have wondered, from time to time, if the fellow isn’t simply a troll, but I’ve kept on writing about him largely because his readers — and other manosphere bloggers — seem to take him utterly seriously.
Today, though, I just noticed a post from Matt Forney — a Manosphere blogger who is himself a deeply terrible person with a history of trollery and sockpuppeting — who seems to be dropping big hints that LaidNYC may not be who he seems. In a post reviewing an”ebook” by LaidNYC — insofar as a 13 page collection of platitudes obviously banged out in a few hours can be considered a book of any kind — Forney writes:
There are bloggers who take weeks, months, years to get into a groove, honing their talents to the point where their posts become must-reads. And then there are guys like LaidNYC who come exploding out of the gate, writing stuff so good you swear they’ve done this before. LaidNYC is on my top tier of bloggers because his writing is not only brutal and honest, brimming with verisimilitude, but his prose style is hilarious as well.
The fact that he so effortlessly sends feminists into shrieking hysterics is proof that he’s doing things right.
He ends the “review” urging his readers to send LaidNYC some real money for his ridiculous “book.”
So is Forney — with that bit about “stuff so good you swear they’ve done it before” — basically admitting that he is LaidNYC? If so, this wouldn’t be the first time he’s written an enthusiastic review of one of his own, er, books under a different name.
I suppose we’ll find out.
In any case, I’m not sure if it matters much if LaidNYC is a genuine “game” blogger with deeply misogynistic views who writes horrendous shit because he believes every word of it, or a troll with deeply misogynistic views who writes horrendous shit because he wants to piss off women and feminists and maybe con a few gullible followers into sending him money while he’s at it.
And whether or not LaidNYC’s noxious “advice” is meant seriously, manosphere dudes are lapping it up regardless.
Matt Forney and LaidNYC — who may or may not be the same person — have learned that you can get attention by saying terrible things. Congratulations. What an amazing accomplishment.
EDITED TO ADD: Well, on Twitter, for what it’s worth, Forney denies it all.
I did manage to find an audio interview with LaidNYC here. You can compare it to Forney’s voice on his podcast here. At first I was thinking that while the voices are similar, it wasn’t a match: LaidNYC was a faster talker with a higher voice, etc. (It’s hard to tell, in part because LaidNYC’s voice in the interview is poor quality, over the phone.) But then I skipped ahead to about ten minutes into Forney’s podcast and now I’m not sure. The voices are awfully similar (and frankly, not terribly alpha-sounding). Any thoughts?
It’s been a while since we checked in with LaidNYC, the alleged pickup artist whose sperm is LIQUID GOLD and whose wisdom about women, and life in general, is liquid, well, something else. Let’s see what we can learn from him.
In one recent post, Mr. LaidNYC brings his unique perspective to the question of raising boys, a topic I’m pretty sure he has no actual experience with. Well, after reading his advice, I can only hope that he has no actual experience with it, and that he never gets any. Some of his insights:
So I read a lot of creepy shit doing research for this blog. But the manosphere blog Random Xpat Rantings — slogan: “Contemplative dominance for the modern man” — seems to be trying to take creepiness to a whole other level.
In a recent post, blogger xsplat attempts to explain “How to make an attractive woman fall for you on the first or second date.” One of his hints: “If you are way into the girl, it will be way easier for her to fall for you.”
But what if you’re dead inside and can’t feel love? Well, have no fear, because xsplat has an answer for you: Pretend that the women you’re dating are your children!
If you don’t know how to feel love, here is a trick that will work for some, if you let it. Men naturally feel paternal love. Women are neotenous. Evolution is accidental, however the coincidence is meaningful. Women are neotenous because that arouses men’s paternal love. Use that to your advantage. Consider her as YOUR child. This will open up a flood of love for her. It’s ok – it’s not real incest – don’t be an idiot. It’s a trick you are performing in order to commune more fully. To love her more. To enjoy for yourself the great rush of love.
Also, I have a long history of doing this, again and again. It’s not just an accident in my distant past. It’s what I do. It’s what I did today. It’s a formula. It’s a formula that might very well work for you.
If you’re giving out dating advice and you have to specify “it’s ok — it’s not real incest” you should probably start trying to figure out just how your life has gone so terribly, terribly wrong.
British barrister Barbara Hewson caused a bit of a stir last week when she called for the age of consent in Britain to be lowered to 13 so as to end the alleged “persecution of old men” like those arrested in the wake of the recent Jimmy Savile scandal, which revealed a widespread culture of sexual exploitation of underage girls (and some boys) at the BBC in the 1970s.
Now one female Men’s Rights Activist connected to hate site A Voice for Men has done Hewson one better, arguing that the real culprits in these scandals weren’t the predatory adult men but the girls they victimized.
The regulars at PUAhate.com – we’ve met them before – are a strange and bitter bunch. Most seem to be self-loathing so-called “incels” who blame their lack of romantic and sexual success on their average or below-average looks. Rejecting the basic premise of the pickup artist crowd – that average guys can transform themselves into suave lotharios by mastering manipulative pickup formulas – the PUAhate regulars tend to be true believers in what they somewhat pretentiously call “looks theory,” the odd and obviously untrue notion that women only date men with “male model” looks.
As one PUAhater put it recently:
PUA makes you think that all your problems are because of your personality/behaviour – i.e. things you can control. So when you keep failing, it means that YOU are fucking up and doing things wrong
the reality is that many of us just lost the genetic lottery. we are ugly, the wrong race, the wrong height etc, and that fucked us up. there is NOTHING we can do about it
So, naturally, the PUAhaters spend a lot of their time jealous of tall, good-looking men for their supposed monopoly on the women of the world — whom they also hate.
But the strange thing is that the PUAhaters pretty much hate everyone else as well. They get angry when guys they consider ugly score “hot chicks.” They get angry when guys who are good-looking but not male models get attention from “really hot girls.” And so on, and so on, and so on.
Indeed, many of the regulars seem to walk around in a perpetual state of rage, angry at each and every man who’s managed to pair up with a woman, not to mention the women as well.
One regular recently described his “day from hell” to his comrades:
To start the day I saw a couple where it was an average White guy with an OBESE Asian girl. They were walking around acting like they were trying to prove shit. LMAO. I wanted to kick the guy in the fucking nuts for dating that landwhale. If you’re going to use the racial advantage, at least date a girl who is under 300lbs. Later I go to the gym and see the same tall guys I usually do. Even if I had a good face, how the fuck do you compete with guys who are fucking 6’4”?
Then at the gym there’s this good looking White guy there talking to this Asian dude about how Asian girls are easy and how they approach him. To make things worse after that these fucking frat douchebags come in with their girlfriends to show off . Then to cap off the day a girl I used to know from freshman year walks right past me without even saying anything. I used to fucking live next door to this bitch and now she doesn’t even say anything and acts like a pretentious cunt. She’s an Indian girl dating a White dude lmao. Days like today make you wonder why you even still try in the first place.
Of course, as I’ve mentioned before, most of those posting on PUAhate don’t actually seem to be ugly by anyone’s standards but their own, at least judging from the pictures of themselves they sometimes post to the site, which reveal them to be mostly average-looking guys, with some of the regulars even quite conventionally handsome.
But evidently they would rather believe that they have “lost the genetic lottery” rather than face a more obvious explanation for why the girls don’t like them: because they’re shallow, self-obsessed assholes who hate themselves and hate women and radiate their bitterness from every pore. (And some are even creepier than this, like this pedophile – sorry, ephebophile – who’s angry at me personally because unlike him I don’t chase after 15-year-olds. Link NSFW.)
The PUAhaters often talk about getting surgeries to “correct” their supposed genetic flaws. They would do far better to spend that money on therapy.
Over on PUAhate.com, a fellow named Virgil challenges the widely held manosphere notion that women start losing their appeal once they hit their early 20s. According to him, the real turning point comes at the ripe old age of 25 or so. Why? Let’s let him explain — and in the process demonstrate how to use the word “c*ntathlon” in a sentence.
I find the Oscars tedious, and only watched a few minutes last night — I bailed shortly after Captain Kirk made his appearance — but apparently I should have stuck around, if only to watch the insufferable Seth MacFarlane’s award-winning performance as Unfunny Misogynist Asshole Host.
What, you say, he didn’t actually win an award for that? Well, yes he did: Having read a number of accounts of the whole sorry spectacle, I’m awarding MacFarlane the non-coveted Man Boobz Boob of the Day Award (Oscar Edition). In the wake of MacFarlane’s performance at the Oscars, in which he devoted a whole song to actresses’ breasts, I should note that I am using the word “boob” to mean “nincompoop.” Which, to be honest, is an undeservedly mild epithet for a guy who punctuated his comments with repeated jokes about rape.
A few of the highlights of MacFarlane’s night:
That song-and-dance number about how great it is to see so many boobs in films – including, specifically, in The Accused, and Monster, and Boys Don’t Cry. You know, during the rape scenes in those quie serious films.
MacFarlane’s animatronic teddy bear (from his movie Ted) joking about attending an orgy at Jack Nicholson’s house – you know, the place where Roman Polanski raped a 13-year old girl.
Oh, and then there was MacFarlane joking about how 9-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis would be too old to date George Clooney in about 16 years. (What, is Heartiste writing MacFarlane’s jokes?) And his bizarre domestic violence joke about Chris Brown and Rihanna. And on and on. (See here for many more examples.)
Getting into the spirit of the evening, whoever was doing The Onion’s twitter account decided it would be hilarious to refer to the aforementioned 9-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis as a “cunt.” The Onion later deleted the tweet and offered an apology for it.
Somehow I doubt we’re going to get an apology from MacFarlane.
Here are a couple more takes on the whole unfortunate evening.
Why Seth MacFarlane’s Misogyny Matters (Vulture)
Seth MacFarlane and the Oscars’ Hostile, Ugly, Sexist Night (The New Yorker)
Oscar Watch: Was That Awful or What? (NY Post)
EDITED TO ADD: Oh, joy! The Men’s Rights subreddit weighs in on the issue, in a thread sort-of-responding to that New Yorker piece.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: Actually, r/mensrights has two threads on the subject; here’s the other one.
MRA founding father Warren Farrell responds to questions about his incest research with evasive non-answers. And a smiley.
The Man Boobz Pledge Drive continues. See here for more details, or click below to donate.
And now back to our regularly scheduled post:
Warren Farrell, whose 1993 book The Myth of Male Power essentially set the agenda for the Men’s Rights movement we know (and don’t love) today, did an “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit yesterday.
Most of the questions he chose to answer were pretty much softballs, and his answers largely reiterated things he’s said before many times. But he was also asked some pointed questions about his views on incest which he chose to answer. Well, sort of. Instead of clearing up the issue, he dug his hole a little deeper.
[TRIGGER WARNING for incest/child abuse apologia.]