Posts filed under ‘Man/ woman’
(Warning: Sexually explicit theme)
I read the blog yesterday of a guy who calls himself a “dom”, on which there was a recent post by Allie, a woman who allows herself to be abused by him.
After work, she quickly entered a shop to buy a magazine. He found out about it. For that reason, she was, and is still, sadistically, painfully punished. I would not go into the sexually explicit details of humiliation and punishment, but it is clear from her writings that she has a terrible self-image (she calls herself i, not I), cried of both pain and frustration today, and she is getting more and more disconnected from her feelings. (“Don’t ask me how i feel. He decides what i feel.”)
She claims she begged him to take charge of her. (more…)
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/benevolence-in-the-christian-bedroom-its-not-all-about-sex/
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/how-not-to-bring-the-next-generation-back-to-church/
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/how-not-to-win-the-culture-war-for-christ/
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/lacigol-and-the-pastor/
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/eve-is-worse-than-satan-says-lacigol/
Vox Day is wrong about women: part 4, Aspects of Vox’s world view that make it easy to believe he could, potentially, be a rapist
Note, 8 April 2013: This used to contain a piece that suggested Vox Day is a self-admitted rapist. It also asked why, if he cannot get a woman to consent, he would be giving “game” advice, telling men how to get women to give in to them. One of his supporters told me that I should read his statement on consent as referring to “verbal or written” consent. The supporter’s claim included no evidence, no quote from Vox that would make this the likely interpretation. Vox’s wife Spacebunny (in rude language that include “pathetic” and “low reading comprehension” – standard fare for her) said this weekend that the supporter was right. Judge for yourself if my assessment of it was reasonable. (I took the statement to mean that Vox sleeps with women/ a woman multiple times, who have not consented)
Vox Day actually, really wrote these words on his blog:
If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent, then I am absolutely a serial rapist. So, too, is every man I know.
According to Spacebunny, the quote should be read in context with other things he said about rape. I actually did – here are the things I could remember that gave me a context for those words:
Other things that gives me an impression of him that is compatible with him being a rapist:
> He actually has a blog article with the name “When rape is comedy gold” - This gives me some idea of his view of rape.
> He believes marital rape does not exist. It is entirely possible that someone like him could rape his wife and not see himself as a rapist.
> He supports “Christian” patriarchy, a systym for putting a religious cloak on misogyny. The tenets of said system say, among others: * that God is male (God the father calls himself father, but is also described as having breasts and a womb in the bible, but no male organs. God the father and the holy spirit are spirit, and have neither male nor female bodies. Jesus was male, but if you understand what Jesus came to earth to be, that won’t support any claims of male supremacy.) * that the man (not woman) is the image and glory of God in terms of authority, and men should have authority over women * that fathers are sovereign – Possessing supreme or ultimate power – over their children’s training (Sovereign? Doesn’t God and the law, or the teenage or adult child himself/ herself, also have a say?) * that it is not fitting for women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public
> He believes there is no form of equality, even spiritually, between men and women. (In that, he denies something that the Tenets of Patriarchy pay lip service to.)
> He believes date rape does not exist.
> His normal way of discussing women is not as full human beings, but as objects of desirability, rating them by a scale of 1 to 10.
> His reason for wanting to change laws on rape to laws that will give women less protection (neither date rape nor marital rape exist, according to him) is because “he said, she said” is no basis to regard someone as a criminal. The courts already know that. The courts already use “innocent until proven guilty” as a measure.
; His view that women “rate themselves by their hottest-ever hookup” (the most desirable man they ever slept with) would not give him any sympathy with rape victims either. The logical consequence will be that if she is raped by a man uglier than her hottest hook-up, it would have no influence on the woman’s feelings about herself. And if the rapist is “hot”, or of she was a virgin, then rape could actually improve her self image.
Vox wrote, as recently as this year:
encouraging men to rape would be considerably less damaging to a society than encouraging women to enter the workforce en masse.
So, decide for yourself:
> Is it credible to regard Vox Day as a self-admitted rapist?
> Was it credible to regard him as one, up until the day his wife said I should read his words as “verbal or written” consent?
> Is it utterly ridiculous, and a sign of low reading comprehension, to regard him as a rapist?
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/hierarchy-and-a-culture-of-midgets/
There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. –
Is this why patriarch churches set such a narrow path for women to live on? Because you need to make women villains and sinners before you can rule them? How contrary to Christ who came not to judge, but to save. (John 3:17)