Stephen Marche Tries to Shame Men into Being Feminists and Fails Miserably…AGAIN

I gave Stephen Marche some treatment last year after he took a swipe at the Manosphere in general and TRP in particular. Much as I dislike having to defend TRP, I will do it when confronted with Feminist acolytes clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers at men.

But Marche is back and like most of the Progressives, he is struggling through early-onset Trump Derangement Syndrome. Combined with his pre-existing Feminist sickness results in a very aggressive and likely untreatable form of TDS. He wants to shame men into his particular brand of politics.

Let me knock down a beer and get to business.

The situation has, in one sense, simplified enormously. The elaborate labyrinths of identity politics have crumbled and left behind basic questions of fundamental human decency. Trump’s actions as president, more than his demeaning behavior on the campaign trail, are deliberately keeping women from power and attacking programs that promote their health, both in the US and globally. Feminism as humanism – the very basic idea that women are people – is now under threat. Any man who claims to possess a shared sense of humanity with women must stand with them.

Demeaning behavior on the campaign trail, including calling one-quarter of the electorate “deplorable”? Demeaning behavior like firing up a rumor that the front-runner in your party’s primary isn’t a natural-born American citizen in order to undermine his entire campaign? Or circulating a photo of Obama in a turban to emphasize the point? Demeaning behavior on the campaign trail like using party apparatus to limit debate and sandbag Bernie Sanders’ efforts? Spare me the disingenous gasping and clutching of pearls. Hillary Clinton is one of the dirtiest, most hardball campaigners in American history.

The Mexico City Policy is much simpler: He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you want Big Daddy Government’s money, guess what? You dance to the tune he calls. Don’t like it? Get your private money donation game up so that you don’t have to live and eat off of federal grants. Simple, yes? I guess it’s not simple for Progressives. They have this peculiar idea that they are entitled to spend other’s money on things they don’t support (Americans are split on abortion), to say nothing of the propriety of taking money from Americans and sending it abroad.

The evidence has become too glaringly obvious. Who could embody more perfectly “rape culture” than a man who was elected president of the United States while boasting about sexual predation?

Let’s see: A choice between a guy who said that “And when you’re a star they LET you do it. You can do anything.”

Notice the words of permission, there.

On the other side, we have a woman who brags about destabilizing foreign nations (Libya), resulting in the deaths of thousands, and exacerbated the “refugee crisis” by adding Libya to the mix.

President Warmonger vs. President Consensual Pussy-Grabber.

Not even a close choice.

What more proof do you need that women face structural disadvantages in their work lives than Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still losing?

Today I learned that Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, and Al Gore were women who faced “structural disadvantages.”

Two contradictory processes are at work. One is the rise of women to dominance of the middle class; the other is the intractable continuation of male power at the top. Since 2000, women have increased their workplace participation in most countries in the world. Across the OECD, the pay gap declined significantly between 2000 and 2011. In the United States, the number of households led by women has been increasing since the 60s and currently stands at around 40%.


But I thought dominance was a bad thing? I thought “Feminism means equality”?

Oh that’s right, dominance is only bad when men do it.

Got it.

At the same time, women are kept from the top positions. There are any number of ways to register this fact, from a comparison of the salaries of male and female movie stars, to the number of women who are full professors, to the scandalously few women who are equity partners in law firms.

Women are kept from the bottom positions. There are any number of ways to register this fact, from a comparison of the sex-ratio of workplace fatalities, to the number of women in dangerous or high-risk occupations, to the scandalously few women who are loggers.

But what am I saying? “Feminism means equality” and “equality” only matters in the C-suite, not on the back of a garbage truck.

We cannot shape men until we have some kind of critical understanding of the mechanisms of masculinity. And simply put, we do not have that understanding. The first graduate program devoted to masculinity studies in the US began in 2015.

Here’s the money quote, right here. For the last 50 years, Feminists have raised a mighty howl, that no man should even dare to entertain the idea of telling a woman what she ought to do. Meanwhile, Feminists have waged a campaign by which they not only have the privilege, but the duty to alter, shape, mold and change men into something that suits their purposes: New Soviet Man…I mean, NEW FEMINIST MAN.

There have been calls for men to join in the feminist movement from its beginning, with two main difficulties: the first is that feminism is inherently about women. And so feminism’s message to men has always been pretty simple: behave better to women.

While creating no similar obligation of women to behave better to men.

The other problem is that men do not talk explicitly about their own gender.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Is this guy for real?

Men talk about their sex. We talk about it and matters pertaining to it. The problem that Feminists like Marche have is that when we talk about it, we proceed down lines of thinking towards conclusions are in no way useful to Feminism.

See Men’s Rights.


See The Red Pill.

And to Feminists, men discussing manhood in the absence of Feminist supervision is not acceptable. Can’t have the proles engaging in Wrongthink or the slaves discussing freedom.

Those facts, in themselves, reveal how far the way we talk about gender has deviated from its reality in American life. During a campaign stop for Hillary Clinton early in 2016, Madeleine Albright declared: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” – a line that has appeared on Starbucks cups. Forty-two percent of American women felt otherwise, as did 62% of non-college educated women.

A comment for which Albright was roundly and rightly blistered. Albright reserved her own seat in hell by sponsoring a war that led to thousands of deaths and the raping of hundreds of women.

Gloria Steinem famously declared that women’s liberation will be men’s liberation, too. Trump has clarified that the opposite – women’s bondage, men’s bondage – is also true. It is men who need to say “this is not us.” But then we would have to think about who we are.

“Liberation” from what?

Women don’t owe men anything. Conversely, men don’t owe women anything. Not time, not attention, not labor, not blood, and not happiness. Consequently, I don’t “need” to do anything on the behalf of any woman.

They are our equals. Let them do for themselves.

Archived Source


Hoes Gon Be Hoes With Jessica Valenti

Trump voters sure are sensitive lately. They’re upset that the cast of the hit play Hamilton made a statement to Vice-President-elect Mike Pence, and that the audience booed him. They’re displeased that their vote is costing them relationships with family and friends. And for some reason not entirely clear to me, they’re unhappy with Starbucks and decided to demonstrate as much by … buying lots of coffee at Starbucks.


Gosh Jess, you sure are sensitive lately.

Whoops, I forgot. Deflection is declase when it is done to a woman, isn’t it? Rhetorical skulduggery aside, let’s go ahead and catch Jessica Valenti in some lies and deceptions!

Jessica’s link about Trump support costing people relationships goes to a story about a social media consultant who lost about 100 Facebook friends, including the best man at his wedding, because he posted a picture of himself at a Trump victory rally.

Getting unfriended by Zuckerberg’s data cattle to be an accomplishment.

But the unfriended man, rather than bawl his eyes out, says this:

“America’s ready to move on, and so am I, with or without my best man.”

Yes, we are ready to move on.

As for the Starbucks link, it should be crystallizing that Jess just kind of links things in the desperate hope that nobody actually reads the sources for context.

But others find the protest counterintuitive, as the plan relies on giving Starbucks money in the first place.


No, Jessica, Trump supporters are not protesting Starbucks by giving Starbucks more money just because somebody on Twitter asked them to.

Jessica Valenti Lie Count: 2

The same people who wear shirts that read “fuck your feelings” and rail against “political correctness” seem to believe that there should be no social consequences for their vote.


Yeah. That bitch right there. She’s wagging her finger about “social consequences” for wearing shirts and making other people uncomfortable for holding political positions opposite her own.

I keep hearing calls for empathy and healing, civility and polite discourse. As if supporting a man who would fill his administration with white nationalists and misogynists is something to simply agree to disagree on.

You keep hearing those calls from fellow Progressives…who lost…and are now desperately trying to scramble to retain what power they can.

By “white nationalists” she means “Steve Bannon” despite being too dishonest and chickenshit cowardly to actually write his name out because, he’s not a white nationalist.

The only slivers of evidence in support of it are statements by Never Trumper and former Breitbart editor, Ben Shapiro, and statements made by Bannon’s ex-wife, Mary Louise Piccard, during their divorce proceedings (wives don’t lie, unless they’re trying to ruin lives).

Jessica Valenti Lie Counter: 4

Absolutely not. You don’t get to vote for a person who brags about sexual assault and expect that the women in your life will just shrug their shoulders. You don’t get to play the victim when people unfriend you on Facebook, as if being disliked for supporting a bigot is somehow worse than the suffering that marginalized people will endure under Trump. And you certainly do not get to enjoy a performance by people of color and those in the LGBT community without remark or protest when you enact policies and stoke hatred that put those very people’s lives in danger.

Sort of like you don’t get to vote for a warmongering fascist (Hillary Clinton) and pretend to play the victim or tear up the streets when your horse doesn’t come in first.

And yes, you do get to enjoy a performance by people of color when you paid to be there (or more likely, someone comped him the tickets. Either way.) without the performers stopping to hector you over politics.

At least they voice their displeasure like that other famous Democrat-supporting actor, John Wilkes Booth.

Being socially ostracized for supporting Trump is not an infringement of your rights, it’s a reasonable response by those of us who are disgusted, anxious, and afraid. I was recently accused by a writer of “vote shaming” – but there’s nothing wrong with being made to feel ashamed for doing something shameful.


Progressives, for all of their supposed secularism, just can’t resist reaching into that Catholic toybox for tools of social and spiritual terror to use on believers and heretics alike.

Excommunication Vitandus

I suppose I should not be surprised by this reaction; people are taking cues from Trump himself, a man who feels so entitled to universal adoration that he whines about protests being “unfair”. Indeed, after Pence’s uncomfortable evening at Hamilton, Trump tweeted that the quite respectful statement from the cast was “harassment”. This from a man who has mocked a disabled reporter, encouraged violence at his rallies, and spent a lifetime denigrating women.

Being tweeted about is not an infringement of your rights. It’s a reasonable response by a man who is disgusted, anxious, and afraid for his vice presidential candidate.

That is how this game works, isn’t it?

The more “victimized” I claim to be, the more moral purity, and therefore, moral authority I possess?

Put that Jessica Valenti Lie Counter back up.

Trump did not mock a reporter for being disabled. He mocked a reporter who he perceived as backing off of a story (about Muslims celebrating after 9/11).

I merely mimicked what I thought would be a flustered reporter trying to get out of a statement he made long ago. If Mr. Kovaleski is handicapped, I would not know because I do not know what he looks like. If I did know, I would definitely not say anything about his appearance.

Jessica Valenti Lie Counter=5

Since Trump won the election, hate crimes are being reported at a rate higher than right after 9/11.

“Reported”…to the Southern Poverty Law Center. But not the police. Or the FBI. You know the people who actually investigate and gather evidence of a crime.

Just a few blocks from my home in Brooklyn, a woman was punched in the face by a Trump supporter

A police spokesman confirmed that a woman was punched, but did not say that the dispute was over politics.

and a swastika was drawn in a nearby children’s park.

What does this have to do with anything?

We have a president-elect who just settled a class-action fraud case for $25m.

And you almost had a “First Husband” who settle a sexual harrassment suit while he was sitting as President of the United States for $850,000. Your point?

But yes, by all means, let’s talk more about your hurt feelings and “civility”.

I would much rather bathe in your tears.

Whether it’s Pence at a play or your Trump-voting uncle at Thanksgiving, there are people right now who should be made to feel uncomfortable. In a time when there is so much to protest, so much work to do, the booing is necessary – shame on us if we ever stop.

The people who weren’t concerned about the use and abuse of executive power for the last eight years of PRISM, the NDAA, drone strikes, the murder of American citizens, not accused of killing anyone, by the government without benefit of due process (Anwar Al-Awlaki), have now found their protesting shoes.

Get the fuck outta here.

And take this final Jessica Valenti Lie Counter with you.

Jessica Valenti Lie Counter=8

Archived Source

Hoes Gonna Be Hoes featuring Julie Bindel

While watching The Guardian circle the toilet bowl, paid Feminist talker Julie Bindel has added her voice to the cacophony of harridans screeching for the destruction of due process and defendants’ rights. In this episode of “Hoes Gon Be Hoes” Julie discusses why trial by jury should be done away with. But only in rape cases. Because matters of the Holy Vagina shouldn’t be entrusted to the hoi polloi.

Almost a decade ago I wrote that rape might as well be legal. I feel the same way today. In 2013-14 in England and Wales, about 16,000 rapes were recorded by police, but only a third of these cases were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Approximately 15% of the recorded offences resulted in a charge. The actual attrition rate – meaning from reporting to conviction – is estimated at about 6%.

By “16,000 rapes,” Julie means 16,000 “reports” or accusations of rape. The one-third sent to CPS presumably had sufficient evidence for the police to say “we think there’s enough here.” In the absence of stating a conclusion, Julie would like to assume that 16,000 women in England and Wales were raped because “why would a woman EVER lie about rape?” (Except when they do). The alternate (and better) conclusion is that those cases not forwarded to CPS and not charged were either A) false, or B) lacked sufficient evidence.

One potential solution to this worrying state of affairs is to do away with jurors in sex crime trials, and appoint a specially trained judge.

“Specially trained” by who? And trained in what capacity? Also, how did we go from statistics showing that police and prosecutors sifting through rape accusations, to an indictment of the right of trial by jury in felony cases?

The minds of feminists are peculiar indeed.

I am wholly in favour of our jury system, but even more in favour of ensuring that rapists and other sex offenders do not walk free.

Anyone who tells you they are in favor of something BUT is not actually in favor of that thing.

New Zealand could be the first country to rid sex crime cases of jurors if one key recommendation from a recently published report by its Law Commission is implemented. The commissioners have suggested that there is a case for having sexual violence trials decided by a judge, either alone or with two expert “lay assessors”.

How will these “lay assessors” be qualified as “experts”? No wait, let me guess, master’s degrees in Gender Studies and Sociology with insightful publications on “why penises are the root of all evil” (jobs for the girls).

Why do away with one of the fundamentals of a decent justice system? Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?

In response to the first question, I’m sure Julie will feed us a healthy dose of “Believe Her” non-logic. In response to the second question, no. Trial by jury (there is no “jury system”) is one of many rights recognized for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the overwhelming power of the state. Your own Magna Carta provides a wonderful list things the state was no longer permitted to do without the judgment of a jury:

Captured, Imprisoned, Disseised (deprived) of his freehold (property), Disseised of his liberty, Disseised of his free customs, Outlawed, Exiled, Destroyed, Proceeded against by force, and Proceeded against by arms.

Not in rape cases. If jurors were to receive the level of training and awareness-raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape, the jury system would be more effective in dealing with sex crimes – but this would take more than a few words from the judge at the beginning of a trial, which is how it works at the moment. In their report, the New Zealand commissioners found that rape trials feature “powerful cultural conceptions” that are “unique to sexual violence as a form of criminal offending” and absent from, for example, a case involving a man hitting another man in the street or pub.

That’s a lot of words to say “please let me prejudice the jury before any evidence is presented.”

I have sat through a number of rape cases over the years, and, despite legislation introduced in 2001 that aimed to restrict the use of previous sexual history evidence unless there is a compelling reason for including it, the defence barrister will often find a way to bring it up. I saw one man acquitted after the defence suggested that the complainant was desperate for sex because her husband had become impotent in recent years. The defendant in this case had met the complainant at 2am in the back streets as she was walking home, totally sober. Almost all the other cases I heard involved the complainant being trashed as a reliable witness because she had been drinking (alcohol is the new short skirt).

It’s the defense lawyer’s (or barrister’s) job to present such theories as cast reasonable doubt on the state’s case. Holding it against jurors for finding the defense’s arguments credible, and against defense counsel for presenting the argument, compel the question of “why allow the defendant in a rape trial legal counsel at all?”

Claims that the complainant is lying are all the more believable because of the disproportionate media coverage of false rape allegations. Also jurors – in particular female ones – do not want to face the fact that those who commit rape include a broad cross section of men, and rarely fit the stereotype of a masked madman leaping out of a bush. Even when a judge permits expert evidence that challenges these myths, this cannot possibly compete with the bombardment of prejudice and misinformation that jurors absorb from some sections of the media on a daily basis.

Pray tell, what is the “correct” proportion of media coverage for a false rape allegation? In the best case scenario, the accuser recants before anyone’s name is splashed across the papers and the internet. Worse case, a man loses years from his life, his freedom, his sanity, and his reputation. But who cares, right? So long as all not a single rapist anywhere goes free, a couple of innocent men here and there is acceptable collateral damage.

There is also a nice bit of doublespeak buried in the middle: “[T]hose who commit rape include a broad cross section of men, and rarely fit the stereotype of a masked madman leaping out of a bush.” Given that the public has been bombarded with the theme of “acquaintance rape” for nigh-on twenty years, making it incredible that anyone in the Anglosphere holds the position of “women can only be raped by strangers.” A stereotype far more common and prevalent among jurors that I have observed is the idea that “the defendant wouldn’t be at trial if he weren’t guilty of something.”

Her refusal, or inability to identify any common traits shared between rapists, she leaves an unwary reader to draw the conclusion that ANY man could be a rapist. Julie is sort of like our Feminist Morpheus walking Neo through the training Matrix and explaining that anyone can transform into an Agent, then when Neo takes a second look at the woman in the red dress, she’s actually an Agent with a semi-automatic pointed right at his head.

Finally, if a bad juror makes it onto the jury panel, it is the fault of the lawyer for not conducting sufficient questioning during voir dire.

That’s exactly how men work in Feminist La-La Land.

Unlike jurors, judges at least get a day or two of training in sexual offences, which includes dispelling the myths and understanding why complainants do not necessarily break down in tears during evidence. My only misgiving in wholly supporting doing away with jurors in rape cases is that it might give leverage to those who wish to abolish the jury system altogether as a way to save money.

Who said complainants (thank Aqua Buddha she didn’t say “victims” again!) needed to cry on the stand? Since we are trading anecdotes, I saw a man convicted of rape on the testimony of an accuser who testified against him and was absolutely stone-faced through direct and cross-examination.

I’m glad to see that Julie concerned that the state doesn’t cut any money as opposed to, oh, the defendant’s rights. But to a feminist, defendants have no rights where the Holy Vagina should be concerned.

If we are serious about ensuring that those guilty of rape are convicted, public education of the type that will robustly challenge the lies and misinformation about rape has to be given priority. It is the public who become jurors and ultimately decide on such cases. The way that men who commit sex crimes are excused, and the women and men experiencing them are blamed, leaves me with no confidence in non-expert citizens delivering justice in rape cases.

“Public education” = “Spend more tax money indoctrinating potential jurors in the Gospel of BELIEVE HER-ism!”

Feminists truly are the handmaidens of tyranny.

Archived Source

Barbara Ellen: Victim-Blaming Is Great! So Long As The Victims Are Men!

Feminist Barbara Ellen, late of the British rag, The Guardian, takes time out of her busy schedule to scold the men whose information was compromised by the Ashley Madison security breach. At least two men are no longer alive to receive the benefits of her “wisdom.”

Am I supposed to feel sorry for those exposed by the Ashley Madison security breach? Well, I don’t.

Now, why would I expect empathy from a feminist for men? That would be a bit like a stomach parasite empathizing with the host creature.

It’s not a moral judgment on my part; it’s just always painful watching people posturing as wild freethinkers, unfettered by convention. To my mind, AM subscribers come across as faux-sexual libertines – too wussy, miserly and/or timid to either have a proper, full-blown affair or hire a sex worker. The irony is that most of the women on the site are now said to be (ta-da!) sex workers. Either that or photographs of fake-women, who don’t exist beyond their beguiling “sexually available” pixels.

So if you aren’t committing adultery the way Barbara Ellen approves of, you’re a wuss, a faux-libertine, you probably have a little dick, you’re gay, you’re broke, you hate your mother, and [insert standard bullshit woman insults to male sexuality/masculinity]. Yes, just go out a hire a prostitute, which, in a more civilized society, would be as legal and acceptable as hiring a contractor to install new cabinets. Unfortunately, feminists and their war on male sexual pleasure has driven prostitutes into the darkest corners of society and deprived them of legal recourse against those who harm them. So sex workers have to utilize sites like Ashley Madison under the guise of “looking to have in affair” in order to ply “the world’s oldest trade” ™ when they should be able to just put up a sign in a storefront and offer blowjobs at market rates.

Then there’s the stupidity factor, and I’m sorry but it’s predominantly male stupidity. Unlike women, men were charged to enter (and indeed exit) the site, which might have given them a small clue as to what was going on. Which hinged on the same thing that’s always gone on – that it’s generally only men who go to such extraordinary lengths to get laid, because women simply don’t need to.

Oh, this is so fantastically shortsighted, it’s hard to find a place to begin. While Barbara Ellen merrily wags her little feminist finger at the “male stupidity” of trying to obtain sex, any mention of “The Fappening” or “revenge porn” (remember when releasing someone’s intimate data was a “devastating, very modern, betrayal” and the victims of such deserved ” stronger, more focused legislation”? Yeah me neither) would fill her little feminist eyes with tears of righteous histrionic rage. Women seeking validation by uploading pictures of themselves to a third-party, aka “female stupidity” should be excused and mitigated (by men). When it comes to “male stupidity”, meaning treating women’s vaginas like they are worth more than they are, well, Barbara and the hens like are free to mock men because as she says herself, men must go to “extraordinary lengths to get laid, because women simply don’t need to.”

Some of you might have noticed from your own days of going to nightclubs how frequently females were let in for free, because that was the only way to get the (fee-paying) males in – and how the reverse never seemed to occur. As the Ashley Madison payment system shows, in some ways this never stops.

Not just let in for free, Barbara. Women typically get free drinks, primacy of place, lots of emotional validation (more important than sex to a woman), in exchange for serving as bait for men’s money. Seems like a fair exchange between the club and the women aka sex objects/decor. The only one getting shafted, in a bad way, is the man.

However “hot” or otherwise, however sexually driven or otherwise a woman might be, she knows she can always get sex – so long as sex is all she wants and she’s not too choosy about the partner. It’s in the female DNA – or at least this is the Ellen view – not to worry about obtaining sex, only about the quality of the sex (and the man). It’s a clear-cut marketplace issue. Women know that the supply will always be there and that the supply will always exceed the demand.

A half-truth at best. A woman’s sexual supply peaks in her mid to late twenties. After which, the decline is of quality dick is sharp and notable. But yes, a woman can always find a man willing to fuck them, but that would be all, but the goal of a woman is not to fuck a man, but to get him to commit to her exclusively.

Let’s be clear: there aren’t hordes of insane, conceited, delusional women walking around, thinking: “I’m so hot that I can get any man I want!” The whole point is that women don’t have to be particularly hot to get sex.

I disagree, there are hordes of insane, conceited, delusional women walking around. Females’ natural vanity, combined with the gynocentric coltishness of feminism that teaches women that their vaginas imbue them with supremacy over men, it makes them insane, conceited, and delusional.

While to a straight man being able to always get laid might look like a super-power, in reality it’s not, unless it truly doesn’t matter to a woman who she has sex with. Once you put desire (whom the woman might want) into the equation, this “power” is exposed for what it is – ultimately worthless. What does it matter to a woman that she could end up having sex with somebody/anybody from a bar/club/website if there’s no one that she’s interested in?

Here’s a tacit admission of truth: sex to a woman really means nothing because women are generally passive recipients of sex from start to finish. Her “power” to dole out sex, is really nothing but a gatekeeper function, and she doesn’t even have to be a particularly smart or judicious gatekeeper to let a man through her portcullis, so to speak.

Moreover, if a woman wants something deeper, perhaps more relationship-shaped, then that’s where the game sharply changes and the playing field levels. This isn’t necessarily because women want relationships more, and spend their evenings sobbing into their cat’s fur about the non-arrival of their prince, but because finding a special, lasting connection is extremely difficult for both sexes.

If you were reading this, it is a fantastic confession: As a man, your commitment (emotional, financial, temporal) is inherently worth more to a woman, than her sex is to you. Once she’s hunting for a commitment (which they all are, ultimately) you, the man, are the prize, not her. It’s also interesting how her first thought of an acceptable man is a “prince” and not an “equal partner who makes exactly as much as I do, and evenly splits all of the household responsibilities.” Her reference point to a man in a relationship is a man who is socially and financially superior to her. Men, don’t fall for this companionate, 50/50 bullshit. The greatest service you could do any woman in any relationship you are in is to be better than her.

Ultimately, everyone finds it difficult getting what they really want, just in different ways. However, perhaps men in particular could learn from the Ashley Madison debacle. Sites such as AM can only work because certain men are conditioned to make surreal efforts to obtain sex, so much so that it feels “normal” to sign up for adultery websites that demand potentially catastrophic personal details.

This complaint is so general that it could be applied to any online transaction. Don’t want your data stolen? Don’t shop on Amazon/Walmart/Ebay/Target/Etsy/WTFever. Her position absolves the hacker of responsibility. I would advise her to stop victim-blaming before she triggers someone.

By contrast, for women, obtaining “just sex” requires little to no effort. So, while there probably are some women wanting extracurricular sex, who simply can’t source it anywhere else, there wouldn’t be that many, certainly not the hordes promised by Ashley Madison. The sad truth is that certain men only believed it because it suited them to believe that women could be as sexually desperate as them.

Again, sex, in and of itself, is worth nothing to a woman, until she wants a commitment. Barbara Ellen’s conclusion is that men are at fault for having their sexual desires preyed upon, not only by Ashley Madison, but by the hackers who stole and published their information (victim…blaming?) But if “just sex” requires so little effort and is of such little value to a woman, why should I as a man have any regard for her vagina? Why should I offer one iota more of compensation for it than the value she places on it?

Archived Source