Feminism

Sex-Shaming: The Feminist Weapon of Choice to Silence Dissenters on Affirmative Consent

|

Any delusion I might have harbored that a world where women have a bigger voice than Rush Limbaugh's would be less ugly was shattered this week. In responding to my column about the idiocy of California's new affirmative consent law, feministas at Jezebel and Wonkette demonstrated one thing loud and clear: When it comes to talking about issues concerning their lady parts, they turn into bigger dicks than Limbaugh. These ladies ejaculated expletives such as "fuck" on their screens several times, speculated about my personal sex life, and called me names—all of which one would have chalked up to girls having fun if they'd actually managed to sneak in an argument or two.

But they didn't.

Wonkette's Kaili Joy Gray got the ball rolling with the following tweet:

Accusing women of enjoying rape was something that men used to do to justify raping them. Now, apparently, it's a club feminists use to clobber other feminists who disagree with them.

But what precisely got Joy's pretty pink "consent is sexy" panties knotted up? She explained in a blog accompanied

AffirmativeConsent
jsgraphicdesign / Foter / CC BY-NC-A

with a picture of the said panties that it was my suggestion that human sexuality is too complicated to be shoehorned into a strict "yes-no framework" without ruining sex for a lot of people. As an example, I pointed out that lots of people routinely end up having awesome sex even when one partner is reluctant and hasn't offered "affirmative consent."

"The reality," I wrote, is that "much of sex is not consensual—but it is also not non-consensual. It resides in a gray area in between, where sexual experimentation and discovery happen." (For useful elaborations of my point, check out my colleague Elizabeth Nolan Brown's blog here and Megan McArdle here. Also check out New York magazine's Jonathan Chait's excellent piece making a similar point while discussing why crude and heavy-handed laws might not be the best way to change the rules of the sexual game.)

This, harrumphed Gray, showed that I was "too dumb to be having sex in the first place" because I didn't "understand the difference between seduction and forcing someone to do sex when she's, say, too drunk or drugged or asleep or pinned down and gagged to say 'yes, let's have sex.'" (Emphasis original.)

Hey, Joy Gray, let me say this very s-l-o-w-l-y so that you get this (go ahead and take notes if you like): "forcing someone to do sex when she's, say, too drunk or drugged or asleep or pinned down and gagged" is already illegal under the law. You can put away the motherfucker who "forces you to do sex" for any reason whatsoever for years and years. Really.

The conversation that we adults are having right now is how—and by what evidentiary standards—does someone (and let's arbitrarily stipulate that it's a woman) prove that she was "forced to do sex" when there are no witnesses or obvious signs of physical violence? Do judges or campus disciplinary committees just take her word for it—or do they allow the accused some voice too? How do they determine the truth where all they have is a he said/she said? Will the California law, that allows things other than words to be regarded as consent, count moans and groans as valid forms of acquiescence? Are its stipulations that consent needs to be obtained on an ongoing basis at every stage realistic or enforceable? Will it allow real rapists to get away while destroying the lives of innocent men (and maybe some women, to be sure) not shrewd enough to game its rules?

But if Gray short-circuited these tough issues to suggest that I like being raped, her funnier—though equally intellectually lazy—sister-in-arms Erin Gloria Ryan over at Jezebel suggested that I like rapists. "Won't somebody please think of the rapists?" is apparently what I'm pleading.

Never mind that I note at the outset of my column that much of campus rape is perpetrated by assaulters who "know exactly what they are doing…and don't give not a damn about what the woman wants."

How do you deduce my love for rapists from that? By doing what rapists used to do to question their victim's credibility before feminists rightly put an end to the practice: Drag in their sex life!

As per Ryan, my "life experiences" have obviously led me to the conclusion that heterosexual sex involves "a horny guy trying to convince a tired woman to lie there while he pumps away at her sex hole."

In other words, in a WonketteJezebel gynocracy, discrediting someone's (imagined) sex life = discrediting their argument.

When Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who wanted taxpayer funded contraceptive coverage, a "slut," the whole feminist establishment rose in unison to condemn him—and rightly so. Ultimately, he was forced to do the decent thing and issue an apology. "I did not mean a personal attack," he said. "My choice of words was not the best, I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

The question now is, can Gray and Ryan manage to rise to Limbaugh's level?

I'm waiting, sisters!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

183 responses to “Sex-Shaming: The Feminist Weapon of Choice to Silence Dissenters on Affirmative Consent

  1. The question now is can Gray and Ryan manage to rise to Limbaugh’s level?

    No. Mostly because Limbaugh reaches a larger audience daily than they could in an entire year.

    1. Uh, try “in an entire lifetime”

      1. I’m sure these “feminists” probably do not take issue with that, because they feel they are standing up for their principles. If so, I at least applaud them for their conviction. But unfortunately, they are wrong. Very wrong.

        1. The effort to be fair minded is laudable but misplaced. NAZIs, Communists, Khmer Rouge, and ISIS stand up for their principles, too. When the principles are contemptible, standing for them is shameful.

    2. I think the word “cunt” is to be used on the feminazis mentioned in the article. Don’t expect a apology, these PC idiots wallow in their stupidity.

    3. I think the author was asking if Gray and Ryan can rise to the level of Limbaugh’s ethics in terms of having the guts and integrity to apologize and admit they were wrong in their nasty and hypocritical attacks on her.

      It doesn’t matter what size their audience is, what matters if they have any integrity or are just lowlife PC scum.

  2. I’m glad you were appalled too, Shikha. I never stop being amazed by how much this crowd hates gender/race/whatever traitors, and how vile they act toward them.

    1. I don’t get why this law is being celebrated by its supporters. The law says that in order to receive state funding for student assistance, schools have to adopt a bunch of policies and practices, including the “yes means yes” standards. But, the law identifies No assignment of enforcement, no process for determining fault, no appeals process. It looks like a law without teeth. If you believe (like the bill’s supporters do) that universities are soft on sexual assault, what makes them think that they will be thorough in the application of a toothless law? What’s really going to happen? Is UCLA going to lose state funding because they didn’t sufficiently punish an alleged perp? How does that work? Those who wanted on affirmative consent law should be outraged because, to them, this pandering law puts the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

      1. “But, the law identifies No assignment of enforcement, no process for determining fault, no appeals process.”

        I’m not convinced the supporters of this law want an appeals process. And I think the process for determining fault is that the defendant (let’s just assume he’s male for our example) get’s one attempt to prove his innocence. If he fails, then he’s punished.

        It’s not by any means a Kangaroo court, but on the other hand it’s nowhere near the level of fairness you would expect in an American court.

        1. No, you misunderstand, there is no enforcement or appeals process against the university! If the university fails to abide by the new law, or does so only half-heartedly, there is no real consequence. So why would the universities, who were supposedly so soft on sexual assault, suddenly change their behavior? Because they are supposed to? Fox and chicken coop.

    2. Congrats, Shikha!! You now know what it is like to be Sarah Palin or Clarence Thomas!! Quite an honor if you loathe leftists!!!

  3. Limbaugh’s comment were against the feminist collective, and thus evil. Gray and Ryan’s comments are in support of the feminist collective, and thus they are well within their rights to engage in as much character assassination as they’d like. This isn’t new or solely a feminist thing.

      1. Dalmia’s complaining about the dialogue being ‘ugly’. It’s always going to be ugly, and the people claiming that they’re not going to be engaged in ‘ugly’ dialogue are often blatant hypocrites.

        Take the death of Osama Bin Laden, where a lot of European moderates/leftists decried the American ‘worship of killing’ that was going on during the celebration. Cue Margaret Thatcher dying, where many of the same people cheered her death like it was the end of the Second World War.

        It’s not about making the dialogue less ‘ugly’. It’s about outrage only being directed at specific people.

        1. OK.

          I wasn’t sure if you were serious or sarcastic. I guess the flood of awful trolls lately has me off balance.

          I should have known better.

          1. Maybe we need a blog policy where people can only write the first two sentences of their post and need to get affirmative consent in order to write the next two sentences.

            1. I consent to this.

            2. Just the first two, to see how it feels?

  4. The most interesting and disturbing thing to me was (as usually) the comments. A bunch of comments talked about how there was a difference between seduction and rape, i.e., if you’re not super in the mood at the beginning, it’s okay for a dude (or lady) to try to get you in the mood and then you consent. Okay, cool.

    But then the other half of the comments were like, if someone doesn’t want to have sex, you don’t have sex, full stop.

    So they don’t even agree on whether it’s morally permissible to try to convince someone to have sex with you.

    And there will be noooooo unintended consequences of this law…

    1. I noticed that too. I guess the takeaway is that 50 ‘No’s and 1 ‘Yes’ is still yes!

      So don’t stop trying fellas.

      1. If even one person heard, even one of the No’s and if the defendant is a male, then he’s in serious trouble when he comes before this Academic tribunal.

      2. Kinda like voting recounts.

      3. Throw in another $100

    2. Speaking of gender traitors. How’s it feel being a collaborator, you monster?

      1. It feels fucking hot.

    3. I’m convinced that noone in the comments has ever had a relationship that lasted longer than a week.

      1. Not even with cake?

        1. Do you really think a cake would last a week?

          1. Fruitcake does. Frighteningly so, too. I think it’s something from the old Area-51…

            1. Fruitcake is actually dark matter.

              1. That’s a frightening amount of fruitcake.

                In fact, your concept frightens me more than the thought of the Great Old Ones because if you are right there really is no hope.

      2. Oh, they have multi-year relationships with Rushbo – wanking to that deep voice.

        1. It’s like you can actually see the tears of impotent, partisan outrage welling in his eyes as he types.

          1. Stop teasing him, he really means it.

    4. Since people are not like animals and females don’t become 40,000 watt hormone transmitters once a month, getting a woman to sleep with you requires taking a chance that they might not be interested. And most men not named Orlando Bloom or George Clooney get shot down more than the Egyptian air force when they are single.

      All this law does is make failed passes criminal. Yeah, no unintended consequences there.

      1. And most men not named Orlando Bloom or George Clooney get shot down more than the Egyptian air force when they are single.

        Great! Now my coworkers are wondering why I spewed tea all over my monitor and started coughing!!!!!

        1. My understanding is that the Egyptian Air Force tends to get blown up on the ground.

          Still, that joke gets 2 thumbs up from me.

    5. Apparently I am a rape victim, as I have occasionally had sex not because I particularly felt like it, but to make someone else happy (and I never explicitly said “yes”, I just went along with nonverbal cues).

      Now, clearly as a male, it is my obligation to serve my betters sexually, so I wasn’t rape-raped. Still, I can’t help but wonder if the notion of fucking because it makes your SO happy is alien to them, because they are malignant narcissists for whom the concept of sexual altruism (or any sort of altruism) is completely alien.

      But realistically, it’s more likely that they’re basically like those lawn order conservatives who worry much more about technicalities letting the bad guys get off than about the innocent being punished. It’s just that where the justicon’s presumed-guilty boogeyman has dark skin and saggy pants, theirs has a dick.

      1. lawn order conservatives

        Are those the assholes that want to fine me for not mowing regularly?

    6. And apparently, cold fish are no longer allowed to have sex.

      “Anyone who has had sex knows what a yes is,” Valenti pointed out. “Grabbing someone closer and moaning, that’s a yes. Lying there and doing nothing with a blank look at your face, that’s a no. I think that we all know that. We have a certain amount of sexual literacy.”

      I think that Valenti’s definitely in the “seduction is rape” category. So can we charge her with sexual assault if she ever touches a flacid penis?

      1. If a girl is lying there waiting for you to do your thing and fuck off, that’s probably not “seduction” at work.

        1. No, seduction is when it just starts with apathy. Cold fish is the entire time. Both are rape according to Valenti.

      2. Silver lining: cold fish won’t reproduce, so in a couple of generations, all the women will be passionate lovers who won’t put up with bullshit like these “affirmative consent” laws.

        -jcr

        1. “Silver lining: cold fish won’t reproduce, so in a couple of generations, all the women will be passionate lovers who won’t put up with bullshit like these “affirmative consent” laws.”

          You wish, but there are enough Libertarians out there who are likely to insert it in anything stationary.

          Also, plenty of mosslemms, orthodox jews and fundy christians popping out vast quantities. If that’s any indication, the future is Fundamentalist, not Feminist.

  5. As much as men think that they might achieve misogyny, they will never be able to hate women as much as other women do.

    1. Yep. Always amuses me how nasty anonymous internet messages are assumed to be coming from males. I’d bet a LOT of them are written by women… the majority of so-called “slut-shaming” is from females, after all.

      1. Traditionally, “slut-shaming” has been a means for unattractive women to combat attractive women competing for providers.

        -jcr

  6. I wouldn’t hold your breath Shikha.

  7. When Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who wanted taxpayer funded contraceptive coverage, a “slut,” the whole feminist establishment rose in unison to condemn him ? and rightly so.

    Well, Rush was merely putting into question Sandra Fluke’s assertion that she needed $3,000 worth of birth control annually, pointing out that it sounds unrealistic unless she’s a professional sex provider. He was thus attacking the very premise of the argument in favor of free birth control.

    Instead, what the Jezebel and Wonkette gals are doing is questioning the validity of your argument against affirmative consent laws by questioning your objectivity, by bringing up Ad Hominem attacks. It is not the same thing.

    1. Well, Rush was merely putting into question Sandra Fluke’s assertion that she needed $3,000 worth of birth control annually

      And clearly there’s no way you could do that other than calling her a slut.

      1. Re: Stormy Dragon,

        And clearly there’s no way you could do that other than calling her a slut.

        Oh, there are other more subtle and funnier ways to do it, like for instance: “in your line of work, you should never run out!”

        Rush was simply too direct.

        1. Could you say the word “Rush” again? I’m getting a boner just thinking about that man’s man!

          Also, I am now schooled that every Libertarian must tune in to that Excellence in Broadcasting.

          1. Wow. You are really an idiot. No one on this thread pimps for Rush the way you pimp for Team Blue. You’d know that if you had half a fucking brain and spent 5 minutes on the site. Rush is not exactly a demigod among Libertarians.

            Unless you are talking about Rush, the Canadian rock band.

            Again: you are fucking clueless and not funny. Are you and example of why people on the left are supposed to be smarter than everyone else?

            1. Craig’s strawmen are all he has. Makes Tony look like an Oxford scholar. Petty sure I’ve said that before, he just keeps delivering the dumb.

              1. If you were from philly or NJ you’d understand it all – and probably chuckle too!

            2. I really thought craig had some potential when he first started trolling these forums, but I think he’s a one-hit wonder. Lately it just seems like he’s not even trying. No creativity, nothing original. He lacks the thuggish, brutish idiocy of an AmSoc, say, or the nuanced derp of Tony.

              Frankly, if he’s not willing to put the effort into a good trolling, I for one refuse to respond.

              1. “Frankly, if he’s not willing to put the effort into a good trolling, I for one refuse to respond.”

                Honestly, I was looking for actual Reason and Logic and I only found this crap. So, yeah, it’s really hard to debate folks who think Palin would make a better POTUS than Obama or who think Rushbo is worth quoting or even mentioning.

                Silly me – thinking that an actual civil conversation may have been occurring on the Radical Right.

                1. You just mentioned “Rushbo” yourself. By your own attempt at logic it must be really hard to debate you.

                  Idiot.

      2. Birth control pills are, what, $20 for a month’s supply? That’s $240. Condoms are like $10 for a dozen. That’s over 3000 condoms, or 10 per day. Even the “morning-after pill” is only $50, which is still 50 times a year you forgot to wear a condom/take the pill.

        Now, I’m not going to cast insinuations on Ms. Fluke’s integrity, but if a dude was having that much sex I would definitely consider him a moral reprobate, and if I knew him would have no problem employing colorful language to that effect.

        1. Hell, I remember that condoms were available (not next to the mints) at the student union. A big basket full of them for the taking.

          So, in effect, safe sex was free at my college. 🙂

    2. Well, Rush was merely putting into question Sandra Fluke’s assertion that she needed $3,000 worth of birth control annually, pointing out that it sounds unrealistic unless she’s a professional sex provider. He was thus attacking the very premise of the argument in favor of free birth control.

      Which is exactly what made Limbaugh’s point completely fucking retarded. You don’t just take the pill on the days you fuck. It has nothing to do with amount of sexual activity.

      1. Re: Hey Nikki!,

        You don’t just take the pill on the days you fuck. It has nothing to do with amount of sexual activity.

        I don’t know what the hell you buy, Nikki, but I pay for my wife’s birth control and there’s no fucking way in this good Earth that we pay $3,000 per year, not even close. That number is fishy enough to burn the bullshit meter.

        1. So you’re saying that it’s unrealistic because it doesn’t comport with the actual prices of BC, not because only a professional sex provider would spend that much on BC?

          In that case, we agree.

          1. Is there some reason mockery in this case is not appropriate?

        2. Add in the cost of a couple of 6-month physical examinations with various blood tests, required before her physician will renew your prescription for the pill. Your insurance probably pays most of that.

          Which could be solved by making BC pills non-prescription.

          1. Re: LarryA,

            Which could be solved by making BC pills non-prescription.

            No question about it, but Ms. Fluke was not in Congress to talk about market-oriented solutions but to talk about socialism.

            My wife does not pay that much for prescription pills as it is, even factoring in the cost of visits to the doctor. Even so, you’re absolutely right: the cost of BC would become a non-issue quickly once it is available over the counter, among aspirin and herbal supplements.

            1. Ms. Fluke is going to be “in Congress” before you know it (once she gets her chops down in CA)

              http://www.standwithsandra.org/

  8. …Why is every em dash a link?

    Also, only intentions matter to these people, damn it, and they have good intentions, so how dare you?

  9. The worst thing about the Jezebel piece was the writing itself. Christ, talk about an assault on decent prose. Apparently using the word “fuck” repeatedly translates into wit and edginess in Gawkertown.

    1. I think the author went to the University of Wisconsin. I am embarrassed on my school’s behalf.

      1. Hahahahaha. I went there for undergrad, and I wrote libertarian pieces for the leftist paper. Some of the articles got so much hate that I actually feared for my safety. Good times.

        1. I wrote op-eds for one of the rags as well. They were both pretty leftist. My turn to the dark side was not yet complete, but I wrote a number of pro-capitalist pieces that didn’t go over too well (I also wrote a number of really dumb articles). I’d love to go back in time and troll the idiot lefties a lot harder. Maybe I’ll submit a letter to the editor or two.

          1. The Daily Cardinal?

            1. Herald. The “conservative” one, but it was not conservative at all.

              1. Ah yeah. Wonder if we wrote during the same years. I just graduated recently. You?

                1. Back in ’08. Glad to know there was someone else keeping socialists enraged.

                  1. Ah you were a bit before my time. It was so awesome being there the last few years. Obama came twice, they protested Walker non-stop and failed to recall him, Ron Paul was there. Quite the political atmosphere!

        2. I actually feared for my safety.

          Whatever for?

          American leftards are a pack of incompetent pussies who are just as likely to blow themselves up as hurt any innocent party if they try building a bomb.

          They’re not Mao’s raving hoards, not by a long shot.

          -jcr

    2. Well, there’s also mindless snark and shite pop culture references.

      They’re like the Go-bots to HnR’s Transformers.

  10. Why is it that feminists rarely fail to use the least sexy or erotic terms when describing sex? I know they’re discussing rape, yeah, so erotic and sexy are outside the context of this disagreement, but still……

    Their terminology is always transactional and crude, as if all sex is some kind of auction or let’s make a deal. Creepy.

    1. It is because they are mostly broken and vile people who hate humanity. Seriously. If you are a sociopath whose single purpose in life is punishing the world for not recognizing your genius, you are pretty unlikely to have any grasp of the romantic nature of sex. They see sex as crude and transactional because that is how they see everything.

  11. Is it just me or is Gray’s “to do sex” construction sound really odd? It makes me picture the mom in The Waterboy.

    “Booby Boucher!! Are you doing the sex in there?”

    1. Yeah, that struck me as odd. Their use of language is just weird. The seem to construct arguments in the passive – something they (men) do to us (women) style instead of it’s a thing we do together.

      1. It’s a Freudian slip–and one that is made frequently. While they claim to be sex-positive, when they get worked up you see the ice cold box they keep their heart in.

        1. See my comment above. Every one of them is some kind of a broken angry person angry at the world for it not working exactly like they think it should.

    2. She’s doing that on purpose to imply that Dalmia is so unhip to how it’s done.

    3. At least they didn’t say “to do teh seXx0rs”

    4. I think it’s a telling slip. If you look at sex and sexuality as positive, you “have sex with someone”; if you see sex as a negative thing, you “do sex to someone”. In this case, I’ll go out on a limb and say that the “feminists” on Jezebel and the rest of their ilk hate men and masculinity, so heterosexual sex must therefore always be at best an unpleasant event and at worst a hate crime. If anybody’s got a problem with being able to enjoy normal sexuality, it’s these dopey broads.

  12. Feminists attack a woman in a degrading and sexist way. Who could have seen that coming?

    The women at Jezebell and Wonkette are vile totalitarian fascists. Shika. They don’t care about rape or other women. They care about power and using feigned concern over rape as a way to destroy the accused’s right to a fair trial and proof beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. Those people are evil and should be treated as such.

    1. Damn, John, now I see you beat me to it.

      1. great minds think alike.

  13. The question now is can Gray and Ryan manage to rise to Limbaugh’s level?

    That is not what little red Marxians do, Ms. Dalmia.

  14. Look, being an adult about this sort of thing is not appropriate. Because patriarchy or something.

    I think it’s disturbing (and telling) that feminists who support this law will admit that the lower standard of evidence isn’t a good thing, but “it will only matter in cases where the woman comes forward and accuse men of crimes”
    so what’s the big deal.

    1. Or they will say that it is not a big deal because only 2 to 8% of rape allegations are false. The 8% of innocent men that will see their lives ruined are just no big deal. I mean they are men and must be guilty of something I am sure.

      1. Imagine if we applied this logic to other crimes:

        “Look, only 8% of capital murder cases result in innocent persons being executed by the state. Quit whining you murderer lover!”

  15. The infidel can be converted, but the apostate must be destroyed.

    Fun fact: Ryan used to be a prolific commenter, mostly because she was unemployed. She towed the party lion and bootlicked enough to get hired to work for Jezebel. The inmates are quite literally running the asylum at Jezebel.

    1. I have pointed out before, a number of times, that the majority of these so called feminist writers are mentally/emotionally disturbed. Search around enough and you will find them admitting it.

      1. Oh, you will. If there is an article about mental illness or some sort of anti-depressant in the news there will be a long litany of psychiatric drugs being taken by the commenters.

  16. But really, if a woman says outright or strongly indicates “I’m not in the mood” , how is that ultimately different from a ‘no’?

    The Jezzies in the comments openly admit to not always wanting sex with their partners but yielding anyway. So what gives? Didn’t their partners sexually assault them by trying to convince them when they already reacted negatively to the overture?

    1. The Jezzies in the comments openly admit to not always wanting sex with their partners but yielding anyway.

      The Jezzies have partners? I call shenanigans. They are lying.

      1. One commenter actually said that her sex-life was non-existent but she still felt bad for Dalmia. Just think about that.

        1. That’s why I just sewed my snatch up instead of worrying about rape culture.

          1. That’s why I just sewed my snatch up instead of worrying about rape culture.

            I’m laughing far harder at this than I probably should be. TIWNITOFL (This is why Nicole is the only female libertarian)

      2. Partners: dildos

    2. And it 100% depends on the commenter. They don’t even all agree on the same specific incidents. But NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

      1. I am pretty sure they all agree on one thing; if the woman later says she didn’t like it, the man is guilty.

        You are giving them too much credit and thinking they even know what standards of proof and evidence are. They just know they want something.

        1. They just know they want something.

          You were right before. That something is called power.

    3. “Didn’t their partners sexually assault them by trying to convince them when they already reacted negatively to the overture?”

      It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them think exactly that about their ex and current partners. And protest that the patriarchy doesn’t make that a punishable offense outside of college. So far.

  17. There is no heresy worse than apostasy, Ms. Dalmia. You were born with “lady parts” hence you must embrace the orthodoxy.

  18. Your mistake, Ms. Dalmia, is in assuming the feminists are even remotely interested in the well-being of women. If you assume, rather that they are interested in power, period, full stop, the entire episode falls into place. It also makes the fairly likely prediction that, no, they won’t rise to the level of Limbaugh.

  19. Those is some nasty ad hominems. Pinkos in general think that is a valid form of argument, so let me give it a try…..

    Hey Kaili, your husband blew his fuckin’ brains out. If I was married to you or had to have ….sorry, do sex with you, I would too.

    1. Ouch.

  20. I dig shikha when she gets pissed

    Detroit, bitches.

    1. I agree 100%.

      Droppin’ F bombs from orbit. Just to be sure.

  21. Kaili Joy Gray: I’m sorry you do not understand how to have good sex without that rapey element. Really, I am.

    What a class act that… person.

    That kind of stark rudeness and petulance brings to me an image of Roseanne Barr, Lena Dunham and Rosie O’Donnell mixed together in an unholy, horrific lump that must be destroyed before it gets loose into the countryside.

  22. I think Kaili Joy Gray was just saying, “You should always have a safe word.”

  23. “know exactly what they are doing?.and don’t give not a damn about what the woman wants.”

    Thieves will steal, murders will murder and rapists will rape. The best anyone can hope is 1) to attempt to avoid circumstances in which those things are more likely to occur and 2) to make some effort to defend oneself against aggression.

    This should not even be a controversial position.

    1. You are BLAMING THE VICTIM if you so much as suggest women can, or should, ever take any steps to reduce the likelihood of being raped.

      No slut-shaming or victim-blaming!! If they want to wear revealing clothes and no underwear and get pass out drunk at a frat party, it should have NO EFFECT on the likelihood of being sexually assaulted.

      That’s how they want the world to be and it damn well better be that way or…or…

      1. No, see, it’s a human wave attack. They send as many women as possible wearing as little as possible and drinking as much as they can into dark alleys, frat parties, bars, and college campuses specifically so that they will draw any and all possible rapists out into the open. Sure, women will get raped, but rapists will get convicted and castrated, and, in a hundred years, when the rape gene has been eliminated these brave wymyn will be celebrated as heroes of the revolution.

  24. Jezzies are too dumb to understand your rebuttal. They are purely emotional creators.

  25. If you expect any sort of civility or intellectual honesty from them you will always be disappointed. They are all about being sanctimonious and lording their moral superiority over everyone else. They wear their sanctimony like women in the past would wear a new pair of expensive designer shoes and for the same reason. To appear to be better than everyone else. You don’t need to know the facts or anything else for that matter to play the sanctimony game. Just stick to the memes.

  26. Good thing there’s no mixed signals like 62% of women admitting to rape fantasies

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605

    Or women enjoying having their hair pulled.

    1. They tend to signal this if they leave their pony tails on signalling rough ride ahead.

      1. I didn’t mean to use signal twice.

  27. Ms. Dalmia, why on Earth do you care what those morons say? They prove their stupidity the minute their fingers hit the keyboard

  28. Isn’t “Kaili” the name of the bloodthirsty goddess to whom Leo McKern and the other other Thugs in “Help!” wanted to sacrifice Ringo?

  29. Is Sandra Fluke not a slut?

  30. No need to even respond to the likes of them.

  31. The question now is, Can Gray and Ryan manage to rise to Limbaugh’s level?

    Yes. You have been slut-shamed. You were too nice in calling it “sex-shaming”.

  32. Dave Chappelle is a prophet.

    http://m.youtube.com/results?q=chappelle show love contract&sm=1

    1. WTF?

      That wasn’t supposed to be a list. Sorry. Let’s try again.

  33. Why do these women have three names? Kind of like James Earl Ray, Henry Lee Lucas,John Wayne Gacy? Must be a thing with these types of slime.

    1. That’s one hell of an echo chamber you found, there. Unfortunate for all, it wasn’t their mothers who thought that way.

    2. Wow. She really needs some help of a professional psychiatric nature, and I mean that in all seriousness. She seems like a deeply unhappy person with some serious, serious emotional problems.

  34. Just so everyone’s clear on this……

    Just how many “stages” are there, and when does each begin and end so the participants know when to ask and when to give or withhold assent.

  35. I think it’s fair to say that:

    1. Reason writers would blow Rushbo if they ever got the chance (right after Rand)
    2. The Libertarian party is not looking for female voters.

    Carry on, my gay friends!

    1. Enough with the homophobia craig.

    2. #1. Come on Craig, your just being lazy.
      #2. Are you implying that women can only emote? Are they not capable of rational thought?

      You usually make people fact check your arguments. I expect better trolling from you.

      1. “#2. Are you implying that women can only emote? Are they not capable of rational thought?”

        I am implying that MED are not capable of rational thought when the likes of Rushbo becomes their hero.

        And that is VERY rational thought.

    3. It’s always projection with you leftists, isn’t it?

      As I’m not sure if Rush will blow you, but hey, the heart wants what it wants. And as a libertarian, who am I to stand in the way. I say go for it pal – make your love known.

      At least then you’ll never regret not trying.

      And as for point B – your are partially correct. The libertarian party does want new female members, just not girls like you.

      Sorry. I know you really want to fit in, but it’s better if we’re upfront.

      And besides – you still got the Rush thing going for you.

      So good luck to you and hopefully, good bye.

    4. The worst part is that Craig will be at a party tomorrow yapping on about how much more intelligent Team Blue is than Team Red, and no one there will know what inane, half-witted nonsense he wrote on this thread.

      Until he suddenly says, “Everyone at Faux News should just suck Bill O’Reilly’s cock!!!”

      Then everyone will look at their watches and suddenly have somewhere else to be.

      1. It’s like a typical circa-2008 obama babbler jumped in a time machine to now.

        1. They are not that rare. The Obama sycophants still make up about a fifth of the total population. The stupid is very strong with them.

  36. I despise the stereotype of women that joy is proposing which is: We are so vulnerable, so weak that occasionally we get ourselves into situations where we cannot, as adults, be responsible for such as: A woman gets drunk and has sex with a man. It’s HIS fault for not understanding that she made herself drunk and therefore he raped her – ridiculous nonsense.
    The worst part is that rape is a crime of violence – NOT A CRIME OF PASSION – and what she promelgates is the opposite of this.
    She makes us weak and dependent. It makes me sick.

  37. -1000 internet points for gratuitous, pointless digs at Rush Limbaugh. Apparently calling feminists out on their B.S. can only be done if you attack a man, “to be fair.”

    1. “-1000 internet points for gratuitous, pointless digs at Rush Limbaugh”

      Right, and lefty intellectuals should use Howard Stern quotes if we want to really be taken seriously.

  38. Sorry, i got the same impression as the other critics; right in the title it said nonconsensual sex was good sex and later almost seemed to be promoting “sexual misadventures.”

    1. Why are you lying about what the title said? Are you unaware that the link is there for people to read it?

  39. Estimates of the percentage of FALSE rape complaints range from 25% to more than 65%.

    The percentage changes right along with the definition.

    I recall a story a year or two back of a guy in a Kalifornia Kollege who was charged with rape. When he asked the woman if he needed to use “protection”, she said, “No.”

    A YEAR LATER the woman claimed that when she said, “No”, she wasn’t answering his question – but rather was saying “no” to having sex. The guy was booted out of the college and his life, if not destroyed, was at least thrown into chaos.

    This seems to be the modus operandi of feminazies – redefine the terms, don’t answer any questions, then when it makes no sense at all, scream “rape”.

    1. Redefining terms, not answering questions, and screaming baseless accusations is pretty much how all progressives work.

  40. I was talking to a Navy instructor about females in the military. He told me one of the most common reasons they were kicking women out was for false rape complaints. In the most recent example, a woman came back past curfew after an evening of drinking. Her excuse? She was “raped”. The instructor told me that the first clue that such an allegation may be false is that it occurs AFTER curfew. In a few hours of questioning, the fabricated story lay in tatters and the liar was on her way out of the Navy.

    Personally, I think it should be the law everywhere that a provably FALSE rape complaint subjects the complainant to the maximum punishment that the accused could have received if tried. So if a woman makes a rape accusation, the claim is proven false, and the maximum penalty for rape in the jurisdiction is 50 years in prison – the woman automatically gets a 50-year sentence.

    No parole.

    This would clear a lot of the “rape” smoke. It would also cause law enforcement to take rape complaints more seriously.

    1. “So if a woman makes a rape accusation, the claim is proven false, and the maximum penalty for rape in the jurisdiction is 50 years in prison – the woman automatically gets a 50-year sentence.

      No parole.

      This would clear a lot of the “rape” smoke. It would also cause law enforcement to take rape complaints more seriously.”

      Hmm, now we see why the USA has more people in jail than any country in the world. The Far Right is always calling to “lock them up” as the solution to every problem.

      Personally, I think Rushbo should have insisted on going to jail because of his illegal drug problems…..but, then again, all his fans defended him. I suppose if he was accused of rape, he’d take care of the problem the same way he always had – pay them off an make them sign a non-disclosure.

      1. Why are you obsessing on Rush?

        1. Why does the right and obsess on him, grasshopper?

          I mean, this article and these comments must mention him dozens of times and talk about him like he’s actually a real force….

          Truthfully, it’s because he’s the leader of the right. The Koch’s finance it, he leads it.

          I’m not kidding.

          1. There are 18 mentions of Rush in this post and comments. 11 of them are by you are responding to you.

            And, because I’ve never said this before to you, yes, you really are an idiot.

            1. “There are 18 mentions of Rush in this post and comments. 11 of them are by you are responding to you.”

              Please count the Limbaugh’s too and check for spelling mistakes.

              I’d say about 20+ mentions – maybe more.

              I would ask you a simple intellectual question. If an article was written about Howard Stern’s take on something and then the comments went on about The King of All Media like this, would you take the topic seriously?

              I wouldn’t.

              Your actual opinion and thoughts are MUCH more relevant to the world than Rushbo’s. That is, if you can express them without using His Excellence’s Great Name.

        2. Rush is the poster boy for libertarians, that is why!

          Ha ha, just kidding. Because Craig is a mindless idiot is the real answer.

          1. “Rush is the poster boy for libertarians, that is why!”

            How else to explain how much he is quoted and that people here seem to know him intimately.

            No, I don’t know what Howard Stern said either. I can’t even quote you Alan Colmes or Sean Hannity.

            Hint: These are not the names to bring up when you want to have an intelligent conversation or debate. Never.

            1. “How else to explain how much he is quoted and that people here seem to know him intimately.”

              People are more educated about their opponents than you are.

              That you think it’s some kind of solidarity just reinforces the view that you’re ignorant.

  41. You’re talking about women who would put Hillary in the White House “because it’s time,” and would be oblivious to an even more proactively destructive foreign policy than Obama’s.

    1. “You’re talking about women who would put Hillary in the White House “because it’s time,” and would be oblivious to an even more proactively destructive foreign policy than Obama’s.”

      Yeah, you righties would have installed Palin there, and then when we entered WWIII and the nukes were falling, you’d say “yeah, I’d fuck her”.

      Those are the “high intellectual standards” of the right. You have to admit it’s true!

      1. Libertarianism is right wing. Are you suggesting that libertarians would have taken the position you have suggested?

        Palin would make a terrible president but even so, she would have been a better choice than Obama. Almost anybody would have been a better choice than Obama.

        1. “Palin would make a terrible president but even so, she would have been a better choice than Obama”

          Sorry, this is an indefensible position – kinda like saying an Afghan poppy grower (who is probably smarter than Palin) would have been capable of creating Space X.

          Not even worth debating. Right wing? Yep, FAR right wing…..actually, Religious Fundamentalist Ideologues.

          1. Palin was smart enough not to marry a rapist, unlike your hero Hillary. Plus she didn’t get her career from said rapist.

  42. Good luck on the apology.

  43. I’ll start taking feminism seriously when when feminists start condemning Islam and its disgusting treatment of women and children.

    I’ll start taking feminism seriously when feminists start treating men and women equally instead of the prejudiced and sexist stance they currently take against males.

    I’ll start taking Feminism seriously when feminists start distancing themselves from socialism/fascism.

    So, I’ll never be taking feminism seriously.

    1. “I’ll start taking feminism seriously when when feminists start condemning Islam and its disgusting treatment of women and children.”

      And I’ll start taking republicanism, democracy and so-called enlightened people’s seriously when they stop allying themselves with Islamists who chop off people’s heads and hands (the Saudis) and who stop kowtowing to COMMUNISTS and OLIGARCHS like the ChiCom’s and Ruskies, and who preach enlightenment but jail and destroy the lives of their citizens by jailing them for offenses such as selling herbs.

      I’ll take libertarianism seriously when they stop posting pics of lynched black folks on FB and laughing about them – and when they man-up and admit they published racist rants and when they admit to believing in one-dollar=one-vote….etc. etc.

      And I’ll take male critics of Feminism seriously when men stop murdering women and cutting them into little pieces and burying them or putting them in the freezer.

      Only THEN will I accept things as they really are!

      1. You must be against illegal immigration then. Considering their views on feminism are even worse than Republican’s.

      2. “And I’ll start taking republicanism, democracy and so-called enlightened people’s seriously when they stop allying themselves with Islamists who chop off people’s heads and hands (the Saudis) and who stop kowtowing to COMMUNISTS and OLIGARCHS like the ChiCom’s and Ruskies, and who preach enlightenment but jail and destroy the lives of their citizens by jailing them for offenses such as selling herbs.”

        I agree.

        “I’ll take libertarianism seriously when they stop posting pics of lynched black folks on FB and laughing about them – and when they man-up and admit they published racist rants and when they admit to believing in one-dollar=one-vote….etc. etc.”

        I agree that what you describe is terrible, but this is hardly a representation is libertarianism.

        “And I’ll take male critics of Feminism seriously when men stop murdering women and cutting them into little pieces and burying them or putting them in the freezer.”

        Indeed, nobody ought be chopped but this is hardly a reprsentation of males nor does it discredited open criticism of feminism, or any other ideology.

        “Only THEN will I accept things as they really are!”

        I think you might need a clearer vision to go along with your acceptance.

        1. The point is clear, though.

          So called “Libertarian publications” are nothing but thinly disguised propaganda machines which glory in finding the speck in their brothers (or sisters, in this case) eye rather than removing the log from their own.

          The really BIG NEWS here is that most people are nothing like Rushbo nor like some “reference” Feminist y’all are making up in your heads.

          The sexes are different in many ways. So it has always been, so it will always be. Feminism is/was about Women taking more control of their lives so they won’t have to always settle for whatever asshole comes up the pike if he’s not nice to them!

          In addition, many aspects of it apply to women who love men too! Voting, for instance….yep, Feminists did that! Sex for fun (birth control pills, planned parenthood). Yep, Feminists again.

          Libertarian movements such as “our bodies, ourselves” – that is, taking personal responsibility for your own health, etc.
          Yep, Feminist!

          Wanting to be part of the professional workforce – at every level?
          Feminist again!

          I have to wonder which part of Feminism y’all are against?

          1. Yes, asshole, the point is clear; you’re a slimy lefty liar!
            Fuck off.

  44. Apparently Ms. Dalmian did not listen to Rush’s comments about Sandra Fluke at the time he made them. So she, like many others, misunderstood them particularly as they were dishonestly reported by the drive-by media and partisan propaganda outlets. I heard them all, and here is the fact: Rush did not call Ms. Fluke a slut. He did say that either she was a liar or a slut, because one or the other must be true. Considering how inexpensive birth control methods are, for her to claim she could not afford them would mean she used many times more of the products as normal people. He pointed out the contradiction in her statements that exposed her as a liar. It is Ms. Fluke, and the people who deliberately misrepresent what Rush actually said, who are the liars.

    It is unfortunate that Ms. Dalmia was taken in by the media lies and so has developed an incorrect opinion of Mr. Limbaugh.

  45. “When Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who wanted taxpayer funded contraceptive coverage, a “slut,” the whole feminist establishment rose in unison to condemn him?and rightly so. ”

    No, wrongly so. Rush should have stuck to his guns. Given what she was testifying for, it was not merely a reasonable assumption that Ms. Fluke was a slut, but that also she was a thief.

  46. “the whole feminist establishment rose in unison to condemn him?and rightly so”

    Rightly so? Your balls called and asked where you are. Sandra Fluke went on TV to advocate for the government to force men to pay for women’s contraceptives, so women can go fuck whomever they want on men’s dimes. Limbaugh accurately labelled Fluke. To claim that he was “rightly” “condemn[ed]” is to claim the truth should be condemned when it’s inconvenient to women and their sackless male enablers.

  47. *This, harrumphed Gray, showed that I was “too dumb to be having sex in the first place” *

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, but based on your other literary contributions to this site, they might be correct.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.