Attention-seeking manosphere douchebag offers how-to guide for abusive boyfriends
Not the model for a happy and successful relationship
Apparently hoping to gin up another flood of hate-traffic to his blog, the attention-seeking human stain whose name rhymes with Batt Gorney has posted what is essentially a how-to guide for would-be abusive boyfriends under the charming title “How to Crush a Girl’s Self-Esteem.”
“Gorney” has conveniently arranged his suggestions into a numbered list, so let’s proceed through them one by one. (If you’re triggered by explicit discussions of psychological and physical abuse, please stop reading now.)
Step one, in “Gorney’s” not-so-unique 6-step-plan: “Constantly make her feel inadequate.”
And how do you do that? Easy as pie.
Every time she does something for you, find out what she did wrong and remind her of it. If you can’t find any problems, make some up.
And try some mild gaslighting while you’re at it.
[Y]ou should always sound calm and collected, like you’re talking about the weather. Denigrating her in a neutral-but-firm fashion will trip her submissiveness circuitry, making her think about how she can better serve you. And every time she reaches the goalposts, you move them, forcing her to play an eternal game of catch-up.
Like the salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross, you should Always Be Criticizing:
The concept is that if you criticize girls for minor mistakes, they’ll be less likely to commit major ones, as their mental energy is expended on dealing with your every complaint. For example, if you constantly critique the way she dresses, you won’t be arguing with her over whether she should get a tattoo or nose piercing to express her “individuality.”
In step 2, “Dominate her physically and sexually,”“Gorney” encourages his readers to violate their girlfriend’s personal and sexual boundaries at every chance.
Repeatedly violate her boundaries in small, petty ways, small enough that she’ll feel petty for complaining to you.
That’s right: abuse her strategically, and in such a way that she feels crazy for complaining about your abuse. “Gorney” is thinking like a true abuser.
For example, if you’re into anal sex and she’s not thrilled about it, the next time you take her from behind, stick your finger into her asshole. If she doesn’t like facials, cum in her hair instead. Lightly clasp your hand around her throat during sex like you’re going to choke her. (Do not actually choke her. That is dangerous.) Smack her on the behind when you’re out in public. The possibilities are endless.
The message you want to send her is simple: it’s not her body anymore.
This is all textbook abusive behavior.
“Gorney” follows this with a lovely bit of rationalization:
Most girls want you to dominate them anyway, but the rationalization hamster and their conscious minds prevent them from articulating this desire.
And then it’s back to more strategic abuse:
[I]f she lets you get away with minor violations of her boundaries, she’ll accede to your bigger demands later on, letting you mold her into the perfect plaything. If she doesn’t violently resist getting her anus fingered, a little more pressure and you’ll be full-on sodomizing her, grinning as she whimpers between each thrust.
Apparently the only sexual pleasure “Gorney” can imagine from anal sex is the pleasure he evidently gets from forcing women into it against their will.
Oh, and make sure you never give her the chance to say “no.”
Never ask her for anything, because asking is begging, and begging is contemptible.
Yep. Avoid the thorny issue of consent by never asking, and assuming that anything other than violent resistance is a “yes.”
Step 3 in “Gorney’s” program takes the creepiness into overdrive: “Isolate her from her friends and family.”
I don’t have much to say about this one; there’s a reason this is a favorite technique of cults and domestic abusers alike. Here’s Gorney’s take on it:
You need to be the primary emotional influence in her life, and you can’t do that if she’s leaning on anyone else for support. Gradually wean her from contact with anyone other than you.
What’s in it for you?
Not only will this increase her emotional dependence on you, it will make her more willing to please you; she’ll be less likely to wreck the relationship if she knows she’ll be all alone if it goes south.
For step 4, “Gorney” puts away the stick for a moment and pulls out a carrot, urging his readers to “Reward her at random intervals.”
But his emphasis is as much on the random as on the rewards; this is yet another gaslighting trick.
If you reward her every time she does good, she’ll see the pattern and use it to manipulate you. But if you reward her at random, her little hamster brain will run itself ragged trying to figure out your endgame.
Step 5 carries the slightly misleading title “Give her an emotional release.” In fact, what he suggests is that you physically “discipline” your girlfriend when she does “wrong” in your eyes.
By spanking a girl until she starts crying and sobbing, you give her an emotional release, turning her into a soppy puddle of goo and making her more inclined to serve you. As a friend of mine put it, all girls crave spankings; it’s their way of making up for Eve’s sin.
“Gorney” seems to be confusing consensual BDSM — which can bring bottoms or submissives intensely emotional releases — with domestic violence.
In step 6, “Gorney” tries to convince his readers — and himself — that it’s an abuser’s incredible sexual prowess, and not his manipulative abuse, that allows him to keep control over an abusive relationship.
You absolutely must have good cocksmanship if you want to ruin a girl’s self-esteem. Girls are enslaved to their vaginas as much as men are to their penises … Girls will do anything for a man who can fuck them good … .
Your dick is heroin, she’s the junkie and you’re the dealer.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
If you can make her cum on a regular basis, she’ll side with you over her parents, her friends, everyone.
Really? I hate to break it to you, dude, but “[m]aking her cum on a regular basis” is not really an extraordinary achievement, dude. It’s not a sign that you’re some sort of exceptional “cocksman” with a dick of pure heroin. It’s actually kind of, you know, basic? Expected? Also, most women can give themselves orgasms on a regular basis.
Additionally, don’t make her cum every time you have sex. Think like a dealer: you give the customer the pure stuff when you want to get them hooked, and when they’re addicted, you sell them shit that’s been cut with rat poison to increase your bottom line.
Somehow I don’t doubt that sex with guys like this would be a lot like taking drugs laced with rat poison.
[R]ationing out her orgasms at random will keep her on her toes trying to satisfy you.
Or send her off in search of someone who’s not such a complete asshole in bed?
“Gorney’s” advice is so over-the-top awful — it sometimes reads like he’s literally copied it from some textbook on domestic abuse — that it’s hard not to wonder if he just trolling. And to some degree, I’m sure he is. But he also clearly believes a lot of the shit he posts, and so I can only assume he believes, and possibly follows, at least some of his “advice” here.
This is a guy, after all, who admitted plainly to hitting a previous girlfriend, in a post in which he also declared that
Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.
Actually, that’s not true. In fact, there’s some research that suggests male chimps terrorize female chimps — and beat them with branches - to punish them for mating with other males. So men who abuse women are in fact the ones behaving like chimps.
Every time I think that the manosphere can’t sink any lower, something comes along and proves me wrong.
NOTE: I don’t want to give “Gorney” any traffic for his terrible post. But I also feel obligated to link to my source. So I have. I’ve just hidden the link randomly in the middle of the post.
Posted on February 5, 2014, in advocacy of violence, attention seeking, creepy, domestic violence, doubling down, douchebaggery, eek tattoos, emotional abuse, empathy deficit, entitled babies, gaslighting, hamstering, matt forney, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, PUA, reactionary bullshit, red pill, self-congratulation, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and tagged abuse, domestic violence, emotional abuse, gaslighting, misogyny, pick-up artists, pickup artists, PUA, rape culture. Bookmark the permalink. 452 Comments.
There’s no relationship, based on the DSM sexual dysfunction categories. Things get a little more complicated if one delves into the philias, because not all philias that have been psychologically constructed as requiring “treatment” are pathological, abnormal, or maladaptive. For outcomes other than the philias that could be construed as sexual dysfunction, for example premature ejaculation, one takes the relationship into the equation as well. If both partners are sexually satisfied, then the timing of ejaculation isn’t defined as “premature”. So in that instance, a male can form a view that they’re “too quick”, but using a timer as the yardstick isn’t the correct measure. It also tends to be based on a PIV focus on sex, and so my (general) understanding is that assisting the person can involve expanding the diversity of their sexual behaviours (if that is indicated, it may not be, depending on the what exactly is the problem). I’m not a sex therapist but I have had lectures by psychologists who treat sexual dysfunction as part of the range of presenting issues they deal with.
But then, I actually have no idea what on earth you mean by “sexual dysfunction”.
Hey Manbobz+awsome (cat)community,
dropping by to say a big thank you for keeping up with the evil MRAs and their doings. Because of you Ive an easier time to tackle all the crap I need to handle on daily basis.
Best regards
And maybe we could not start coming up with excuses for abusers.
Kiwi girl: Mandy Patinkin-what about Yentl? *drools* Of course I drooled over Babs and Amy Irving too. Lol!
Maybe erectile dysfunction? Hell idk.
@Kitteh
Yeah, Bat Gaun-ey knows that it will cause certain types of
women emotional harm, but slip under society’s defintion of
“emotional abuse” and skirt too close to rape culture for
feminists to touch. I, for one, have little doubt that Bat
Guan-ey is most likely not trolling and writing from
experience.
Sexual witholding is a passive-aggressive staple.
@AIT
YES! Re-read what I said to Kitteh in my earlier post
and in this one.This isn’t about a one-off event, and Bat
Guan-ey’s post isn’t talking about refusing sex
occasionally, because the guy isn’t in the mood, either.
No, they’re not literally the same.I was making a metaphor
about how repeatly rejecting any form of emotionally caring
for your partner is harmful, not literally comparing sexual
intamacy with household chores.Although you say you have sex
with your partner if zie feels neglected, why is that?
By the way, it’s not your resposiblity to oblige her with
helping out with dishes, going out on dates, or anything
else either. I, personally, can think of an assortment of
reasons to not do dishes with a partner;
-I may be doing the bulk of the rest of the housework.
-I may have an arrangement with my partner that I do the
cooking, zie does most or the clean-up (this is the
arrangement in my house).
-I might be particularily physically drained that day and
plan on doing them the next day.
-I may have different cleanliness standards than my partner;
ie, I may only do dishes once a day, while zie may want them
done after every meal.
-I may be physically hurt, have a broken leg, or whatever,
that physically prevents me from doing dishes.
-I may have had a particularily long day at work while my
partner has had the day off.
Point is, you aren’t obliged to do anything in a
relatinship, other than being obliged to avoid abusing your
partner. And when you do something-anything-
repeatedly and with the intent of causeing emotional
distress in your partner- it’s abuse!
@Old Reader
Ok, I get that. Other woman are different. Also, men as a
general rule don’t just “orgasm regardless anyway”. Some men
struggle with delayed ejaculation, at least some men view
sex as a major way of connencting emotionally with a woman,
some men are looking for more than a warm blow-up
doll.Emotions affect men sexually just as much as women.In
other words, sex starts in the head for both genders.
@cassandra
The statment “most women are good kind people who don’t
steal from their boyfriend’s bank accounts” is also a
generalization. Let’s focus the debate on whether or not the
generalizations are accurate, not whether they are
generalizations. I never said that this was “all” women, or
even “most” women.
Looks like dlouwe gets it!
Yes, it is a common sceneario, although I’m not seeing any
statictics for exactly how common it is. Considering that
“Many” and “Some” are both pretty meaningless words, and
whether “many” women feel this way or whether “some” women
feel this way is meaningless as to whether or not a pattern
of sexual withholding is manipulative and abusive to certain
women,I’m just going to cede this point.:)
We can replace all “manys” with “somes”.
Here is one citation;
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?
articlekey=43662
I’ll get to the rest later, as I really have to get going.
I assumed MEZ meant that there’s a possibility of emotional intimacy in sex that doesn’t exist in masturbation. Which I don’t disagree with. But given what else they wrote, it’s possible they were talking about a woman’s need to ~please her man~, which I’d also like to see citations on if the claim is that this is a universal need. I mean, yes, there is social pressure on women to be sexually appealing to men, and that extends into sex itself, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that (hetero/bi) women are wracked with anxiety over it.
@coolies,
I was like that for a long time. For whatever reason, I didn’t (and often still don’t) get excited over the men everyone else seems to find attractive, and I worried that there was something weird about me. Now I know that photographs just don’t do much for me in most cases, because personality is a big attraction factor for me. And now I know that I’m just not that attracted to men (although amusingly, the longer I’m with my [male] partner, the more I find men appealing).
Off topic, but why are you double spacing, MEZ?
Coolies,
There is nothing wrong with you. We all have different and varied tastes. I’ve been out with friends and they’d say something like, “Wow, look at all the hot guys here” and scanning the crowd I couldn’t find hide nor hair of the guys they were talking about. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.
@MEZ
Yeah, but sometimes people just have different sex drives :/
And I’m gonna have to disagree with you. Household chores =/= sex. I can’t articulate why atm, but it’s just a really off comparison, imo.
Oh, lordie. Look, just provide your fucking citations, or get out. I’m so tired of your generalizations.
You said many. That means a significant number, that means I’m gonna want to see you back up your shit.
@emilygoddess
Yeah, I get what you’re saying. The reason I asked for clarification was b/c I was getting weird vibes from MEZ on it, and sometimes when people phrase it in their own words it feels more clear which way they’re going with the topic. Idk, if that makes sense?
Where are these photos of guys y’all are talking about?
“Ok, I get that. Other woman are different. Also, men as a general rule don’t just “orgasm regardless anyway”. Some men struggle with delayed ejaculation, at least some men view sex as a major way of connencting emotionally with a woman, some men are looking for more than a warm blow-up doll. Emotions affect men sexually just as much as women.I n other words, sex starts in the head for both genders.”
But who cares if it’s a generalization if the generalization is right? Why bother with the explains and such, the generalizations is wrong you say, so that’s that then!
Old Reader — go back a page or two and you’ll find them.
MEZ:
Ok, I’ll give you one more shot at convincing me you’re not a huge troll, because while some would say emulation is flattery, I’m not flattered. I am not saying I would have pity sex with them, as you are implying with your little “why is that?” tag-on. I didn’t say I’d have sex, I said I’d make time to be intimate. Intimacy =/= sex.
You’re also backpedaling if you tell me now that you’re not obliged to do anything in a relationship, because the way you framed that last bit I responded to framed them as things you should not withhold from your partner.
You started this by saying that
You didn’t say constantly rejecting. The way you put it is a man shouldn’t reject his partner sexually. And I told you, if I’m not up for it that particular moment, I will do what I can to make sure they don’t think I don’t want them.
I am glad you have an established chore routine in your household, which you and your partner agree on. That’s good. Using not helping with the dishes as a metaphor for not having sex is a bit too far off base.
Marie:
Thank you! I think the biggest reason I have a problem with that metaphor is dishes are something that needs done to keep a clean home while sex is something that two partners consent to doing. Hell, some couples are completely asexual, but I’ll be damned if they don’t do dishes. Unless they eat out all the time.
….I have no words for this. I’m speechless. At the same time, I wonder if this guy actually believes what he says. If he does, well, then he needs some serious Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. And no Red Pill, doesn’t count as CBT (One of these guys came into Blue Pill and told me that their subreddit was CBT once because people who had licenses were all “feminazis.”
@Mnemosyne
Can’t tell if this is just me being too sensitive, but that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy quip is so fucking rubbing me the wrong way.
I’m gonna hope Mnemosyne was attempting to say they need therapy. Which anyone who seriously thinks this is an okay way to behave does. Or, at least, if you think being abusive is a great way to get a GF, you need a psych far more than you need a GF.
Or maybe Mnemosyne just said CBT cuz Red Pill dude did? I can’t tell.
It’s not for anyone to say you’re being too sensitive or not, Marie. The joke didn’t rub me the wrong way, but that’s me. I’d just say CBT would be wasted on a shitface like Forney; you have to want to change your thinking.
I read the comment as meaning that some MRAs possibly do think that Red Pill is equivalent to / a valid alternative to CBT. I would normally raise at least one eyebrow at that, but David’s blog has taught me not to be too surprised at anything MRAs might believe.
@ AIT
On the trolling or just clueless issue I’m going to guess that it’s the latter in this case, but honestly? Given how consistently zie seems to be rubbing people the wrong way I’m not sure it matters.
(In other words, my patience is wearing as thin as yours, and I suspect it’s not just the two of us feeling that way.)
Cassandrakitty:
The thing about cluelessness is, zie has zir clueless remarks pointed out often enough, and by enough people, that zie should start to see the pattern and perhaps realize that it’s time to stop doubling down, making snide little quips, and instead just apologize, try to learn, and then shut it.
I can’t find quite the word I want for snide, perhaps just indirect? Loaded? For someone who studied language, I’m terrible with English some days.
I personally feel like zie has run out of mana to play the cluelessness card.
@auggziliary
Because I wrote the post in Notepad, pasted and posted it in a super rush, and then Notepad destroyed the formatting. I’m half tempted to fix that mess and repost it but it seems as if some people have already responded.
@Marie
Oh god, let’s back up. Forney posted some diabolically fucked up shit about manipulating women, and one of his pieces of advice was that women could be manipulated by withholding sex, an idea that was scoffed at here. I posted that this isn’t off base, as many women would be confused and internalize the abuse, many women highly value sex, other posters chimed in about toxic societal scripts about men “always” wanting sex, etc. etc.
Arguing as to whether “some” women feel this way, or “many” women feel this way, is completely missing the point. It’s the same thing with saying “it’s a generalization!”; it’s irrelevant to the issue. Generalizations are not automatically bad, they can be false, or they can be true. Honestly these arguments against me are red herrings.
I’ll gladly provide you citations, but first I want to know what you are looking for so I can make a point of citing it. Are you looking for a discussion on how one partner’s sexuality effects the women’s sexuality, or are you looking for an exact number of women that feel this way so you can say “See, see! You shouldn’t have used the quantifier many!”?
Why are some of you so defensive over whether it’s “many” or “not so many” anyway? Do you feel that I’m making a judgement call about women who don’t feel this way? Do you feel that I’m implying that it’s abnormal to feel differently? Is this just because of the subject matter, and it’s closeness with both abuse and issues with consent?
The fact of the matter is, abusers attack any weakness. Maybe you would laugh if a guy tried to put you down sexually, other girls would take it differently. It’s still a red flag. And it’ll take a few days to get my citations in order, once I figure out what you’re looking for.
They do. Healthy relationships try to take this into consideration and find a workable solution that takes everyone’s needs into consideration.
@emilygoddess
Yeah, I was more or less referring to emotional intimacy, but also referring to the fact that sex and masturbation can just be different beasts. Since you guys asked for clarification, I’ll give you an example. Not to TMI you guys but, [TMI] I rarely receive full physical relief from sexual frustration solely from masturbation because there’s all the emotional and sexual components that I bring into sex, the feel of a man’s body, his scent, the intimacy of knowing or finding out what gets each other off, feelings of love, the little goof-ups or awkward moments that happen, etc. etc. I won’t give you guys too much TMI. [/TMI]
“~pleasing her man~”, it sounds so sterile and robotic when you say it, like it’s about subjugating herself and her needs and not about intimacy. Which some women are in to. Where did I say anything, anywhere, about “universal needs”?
@AIT
Yes, I assumed by intimacy you meant sex. I wasn’t flattering you, or trolling you, I thought I was dealing with someone who strongly argued a point, and then turned right around and said he doesn’t follow his own beliefs. Which I now see is due to a misunderstanding/bad assumption on my part. “Intimacy” can mean sex, but I shouldn’t have assumed so.
This is true, I didn’t, but I was referencing the bullshit in a post by an asshole that was about repeatedly withholding sex from women.
And I’m sure your girlfriends understand, because you go out of your way to make sure that your sensitive to their feelings and needs as well. Your behavior doesn’t have anything in common with the shit-stain advice that Forney gave, which is what I was referencing and talking about.
I was specifically using examples of things that you CAN and probably WILL say no to during the course of a relationship, but will likely damage the relationship if done to excess. Being able, and somewhat expected to, say no to something is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of being obliged to do it.
It would be a mistake to say that happily asexual couples “withhold” sex from one another. “Withholding” something important from another person is not about consent, it’s about emotionally hurting the other person and making a power play. Think about it.
“Withholding money”.
“Withholding permission”.
“Withholding approval”.
None of these phrases are about mutual respect and understanding between equals.
Dishes and sex (for those whom need sex) are different levels of needs. Dishes are practical and basic while sex is is a bit like “self-actualization” in that it’s something that is better to have (for those whom have an emotional need for it) but not life threatening if you don’t have it. They’re not similar in a needs-based way, but how they are similar is that both are emotional bids, or maybe even transfers of caring, from one partner to another. Dishes need to be done, but they don’t need to be done by any one particular person. It’s the emotional disconnect that does the damage when it occurs.
Again, it’s about withholding and not about consent.
Marie,
I apologize in advance for speaking for you, but I’ve had it up to here, here being my eyeballs. I also apologize if you prefer another pronoun, I’ll make sure to fix in the future if you wish.
MEZ,
You have proven yourself entirely clueless. Marie asked for citations on your statement that “many women’s sense of sexuality, and womanhood, is really tied up into pleasing the man in bed.” Emphasis mine, showing you what zie wanted cited, as if zie hadn’t made that clear already when zie first said she wanted you to dig up the citations that you were “too lazy to dig up” at the time, but said you would “do so if anyone’s interested”. Many is implying a large number, where some could be large or small. Ask Miriam Webster. Marie said zie’s interested in your citations. So far you’ve failed to back it up, constantly being either too lazy, too busy, or at this point unable figure out what anecdata is being objected to. A few days have already passed, you’re treading on people’s toes now. If you have as much source as you imply, you could probably cover both issues you mentioned to Marie. Thank you.
The argument is not moot just because you cannot back up your side of it. Arguing that generalizations are not inherently bad is missing the point that the one you made is a bad generalization.
Instead of passing time making long double down comments, why not spend some time finding us at least ONE of your citations? If you can go through them for days, hitting ctrl + F to find key phrases should not be that hard.
“Why are you so defensive” is a bully tactic. Fuck that.
The original post wasn’t even talking about withholding sex, in fact he was promoting having sex as often as he wanted, and raping her! He’d said to be rationing out her orgasms, meaning she shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy it all the time. I never once argued that is abuse.
I do not agrue with you that abuse is abuse. Everything posted in Forney’s article is straight out of the textbook on abuse flags. I get it. I suffered nine months of emotional torture, with many of her tactics reflected in Forney’s guidebook, and still to this day have problems trusting people and myself because of it. If you think I don’t know what abuse is, you clearly don’t know me.
Don’t you fucking dare tell me that sex is a need. You said yourself, you will not die without it. Maslow has been fairly solidly debunked, please read up here. I already have a wall of text here, so I won’t repost more than the link. Thanks to Sparky for pulling that one up back in the thread started on the 30th.
I didn’t say asexual couples withhold sex. You are putting your context onto my words. I mentioned them as an example of people who by definition do not desire sex. You are insisting it’s a need.
If you honestly only meant abusive relationships in that phrase, I couldn’t see that.
I am about to pass out because it’s 0300 where I am, and frankly that is an ugly hour. I don’t plan to continue this. I’ve made my points.
Sex is an essential need = asexual people are like Breatharians?
(except that no Breatharian ever survived for long under public scrunity)
*record scratch*
MEZ, what the blue fuck is wrong with you? You are an onion of awful.
Expecting your partner to sleep with you regardless of how they feel about you at a given moment, because they’re “supposed” to sleep with you at a certain frequency, is a rapist’s staple.
I’ve kinda skimmed some of the comments, but I’m going to throw my two cents in anyway.
The biggest issue I have with what you have written MEZ is the emphasis on the ability to manipulate *women* by withholding sex and/or intimacy. It isn’t tied up solely into an idea of womanhood, except in rather backwards sexist beliefs about gender roles, which I know still exist. So yeah if the woman in the scenario holds these beliefs perhaps she would be even more susceptible to manipulation that way. But, the reality is people, not just women, can be manipulated this way. If I started withholding affection from my bf as a tool to control him it would be just as effective (maybe more since I’m not a very touchy emotional person).
@kittehs
No you are perfect*, because now I understand what bugged me about it. But idk. Like, mras don’t want to change their thinking. They’re just hateful jerks. NEway, on a full nights sleep, I don’t know if it’ve rubbed me the wrong way, so whatever. Mnemosyne, feel free to ignore me, cuz I’m just confused here, so whatever.
*I mean, you’re already awesome, but this is how I type while caffineated.
@MEZ
‘red herrings’? Wow. Look, I’m not in the mood to give you the benefit of the doubt at the moment, but I am so tired of this ‘generalizations aren’t actually been’. They’re still tiresome, and you use them a lot.
I feel like you’re making a judgement call about all women, tbh.
@AIT
Thanks for the consideration. For future reference, I prefer ‘she’ but I think ‘zie’ is a fine one to use if you don’t know. (idk someone tell me if this is wrong?) And I didn’t feel like you were speaking for me, so no worries :3
Marie,
Good to know! I am cool with anything he or zie for me. They works too, but it is grammatically funky in some instances.
Marie — I use ze for myself, my genderfluid sorta lover (it’s complicated, hence why I usually refered to zir as my pharm student [who's going onto zir residency soon, w00t! Maybe…we'll see where it is…]), and when idk what pronouns to use. So I’m not gonna complain about anyone defaulting to it, but I am, of course, not the Final Arbitrator of Language or anything XD
I’m too lazy to scroll back and look, but people scoffed at the idea that women can be manipulated by withholding sex? (MEZ says it was scoffed at) I’m not recalling anyone going “well that abuse tactic would never work”
Hey I’m not gonna complain about your caffeinated typing!
I got to the point of hardly reading MEZ’s walls of text, but sex as a need? Really? That fucking old rapey trope? Bull fucking Shit.
Sex is a desire. Yeah, it might be a really strong one for some people, sometimes, but it’s not a need. If it were I’d have expired or whatever is supposed to happen long before I hit fifty, and yeah, like Vaiyt said, there’d be no asexuals at all. For that matter there’d be no people who choose not to indulge at all, despite not being asexual.
@ AIT
I’m trying to give hir the benefit of the doubt since I was coming down hard in the other thread, but yeah, my eyeballs have been running for cover under the couch every time zie weighs in with another long, rambling, full of offensive assumptions comment. Most of which, like kittehs, I’ve just stopped reading, so I only notice the offensive stuff when someone else gets all “wtf did you just say?”
Which, upon scrolling back, has so far turned out to be a reasonable response in every case.