Needless to say. the boys over at ROK are pretty steamed at this "attack" on their "freedom of speech", while the gals over at Jezebel are crowing.
Personally, it is a matter of complete indifference to me whether Amazon carries this book or not. There are plenty of books available that I would probably find even more despicable and offensive. And it's not like this notion (that men can overcome women's initial objections through coercion) is a new or novel approach or isn't the stuff of a hundred years' worth of popular fantasy.
What these boys don't understand is that media conveyers like Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon are corporations which have the right, nay, the obligation, to refuse custom that they believe will hurt their bottom line. It probably took Amazon about five minutes flat to figure out that the paltry profits it would get from this execrable self-published tome weren't worth the shit-load of bad PR its existence was creating among its literate customer base, who actually buy real books (and lots of other stuff). Du-uh!
I read some of the comments over at Huff Po UK. One male commentator complained rather peevishly that women "always say no when they really mean yes." In fact, neither women nor men always do anything, but I do understand why some men accuse some women of being disingenuous.
As a former proud, card-carrying slut, I have had loads of sex (mostly meaningless and quite forgettable) with a lots of different men. I have never said "no" when I meant "yes". I have occasionally said "no" when I meant, "Maybe later -- I'm not sure yet." And once I did back out at the very last minute because a prospective partner smelled really bad, which I didn't realize until he had taken off his shoes, and I'm sorry, but ew, no no no. And occasionally I said "no" when I was pretty sure I was going to say "yes" on the third date because -- well, I didn't want the guy to dismiss me as a "slut."
This is a topic that I wish the manosphereans and the young ladies they lust after & resent could have a really honest conversation about.
Gentlemen, I will concede this: Young women need to take ownership of their desires. A woman who, at the last minute, says "no" while secretly hoping the man will ram through her explicit refusal is being fundamentally dishonest with and unfair to both herself and her partner. And, frankly, if I were a guy, and I suspected a woman was playing me like that, I wouldn't like her one little bit. At the very least, I wouldn't trust her any farther than I could throw her. She sounds like a bad bet for a lot of reasons, and the last thing a man should do, under those circumstances, is proceed to fuck her. This is where I want to grab these boys by their short hairs, and say, I know you're horny, but don't be a moron!
Trust me, fellas: Women want sex too. A woman who truly wants to have sex with you, and understands that you will not proceed without her unambiguous permission, will step up to the plate. And if such a woman loses respect for you because your deference strikes her as somehow unmanly, well, this is a person with some issues you are better off staying well clear of.
Nobody has ever died of blue balls. In fact, back in the day before people expected instant gratification of every imaginable appetite, all that built up "frustrating" tension could result in some ultimately intense, explosive release. Try to think of sex as a ride, not just a destination.
And so what if you "miss" a particular sexual opportunity and -- the horror! -- it never presents itself again? What, are you still crying about the ice cream cone you dropped at the State Fair when you were in second grade? Don't be such a fucking baby.
By the way, I do find the way Roosh exhorts his flying monkeys to push back against critics quite chilling. He and Matt Forney seem to have taken a cue from Paul Elam of A Voice for Men by advocating the intimidation and harassment of young women he identifies as "hostile" to his "movement." There's a weird sexual sadism vibe here too: he tends to target the younger, more attractive girls for these campaigns.
Today:
-
Retweeted by Roosh
@saracnelson abused her position as Huffington Post blogger to cause financial harm to one of our contributors. She may come to regret it. -
Retweeted by RooshWe're currently collecting information on
@SaraCNelson, who yesterday attacked a ROK contributor http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-32624.html …
Return Of Kings
-
@SaraCNelson started the attack against VinceNnt. Please send me any info you have about her to roosh@rooshv.com to aid our response.
Roosh
Now if only amazon would pull 'To Train Up A Child' from their lists, a far more odious and damaging piece of trash.
ReplyDeleteI hate the way these guys see shagging a girl as an achievement rather than a mutually fulfilling experience. Does it occur to any of them for a nanosecond, that a girl who has been mislead to believe a guy wants a relationship, who is then coerced into sleeping with them earlier than she would choose (because she believes she's at the start of something, not halfway near the end), may actually be harmed by the overall experience? That she might feel like an idiot when the guy never calls, and blame herself, and wonder if the next guy who says nice things to her is lying as well? How many people act flaky in relationships and have trust issues because of the way other people have treated them in the past?
But oh no, it's all 'seduce and destroy'.
Re/ "To Train Up A Child," I could not agree more. That book has been implicated in several child abuse cases in the U.S., most recently in my neck of the woods with the Hannah Williams murder.
ReplyDelete