Marcela Kunova on online harassment at the Huffington Post UK:
Virtually every woman who publicly contributes to a political debate is subjected to virulent and largely anonymous online invective, or “trolling”. But it is far more than simply readers’ feedback. Trolling is intended to make women shut up – and to remind them their primary purpose is to be there for male sexual pleasure. Or not to be in public life at all.
It now seems to be an established fact: women who speak publicly get threatened with rape, physical violence, harming their relatives and murder. It is not just a bit of fun. Many are stalked and get their home addresses published. And it doesn’t really matter whether those threats will subsequently come true – they are already an act of violence.
Internet has offered women new ways to express themselves. But it has also enabled some misogynistic men to open the floodgates of hate and – cocooned in online anonymity – to bully women who have penetrated traditionally male-dominated public life.
The worst thing is that the strategy of harassing and intimidating female journalists, bloggers and other female public figures, was often sucessful. Some journalists, like Linda Grant, admits she stopped writing her regular column for the Guardian, because of violent threats. Some bloggers think twice before publishing a post.
Some bloggers refuse to second-guess themselves because of what a lot of abusive trolls say, but they also get tired of the abusive trolling.
But since 2011, when journalist Laurie Penny spoke out about the violent sexual threats she regularly receives, things are perhaps starting to change. Others joined her initiative and testimonies started to flow. More recently, American feminist Soraya Chemaly published a bone-chilling post about death threats she received via Facebook and Twitter.
Now thousands of women have joined their voices worldwide in online campaigns like #shoutingback, #silentnomore, and @EverydaySexism, to mention only a few.
It’s a start.
Taking back that “Silent No More” slogan from the anti-choicers?
Bravissima!!!
As a male, I would like women who imagine they’re here for male sexual pleasure to stop competing for male attention and stop blaming men for the choices they choose to make (which men have no possible motive or control over; cosmetics, clothes, lies about needing emotional vulnerability, lies about female reproductive biology, lies about needing men to take care of them, etc). I would like women to stop doing anything for anyone except themselves. When this world is truly Selfish, it will again be humane. When it is humane, biological truth will prevail and everyone will again live in peace and harmony instead of seeking advantage at the expense of Humanity (at their own expense).
Of course, that will require women to stop imposing upon little girls with their lies about how Real Women are supposed to feel female reproductive desire as well as cease all subsequent slut-shaming of honest girls too competitive to be permitted to compete. I’m not holding my breath; women just refuse to give it up (they want to sell / trade / manipulate / leverage it instead, cue cyclical ‘slut’-shaming and 5000 years of deceit and violence).
This is pure truth but across much of the Internet, it would be considered trolling. Isn’t that something? Whoever would imagine a world where truth could be considered rude.
Jonny Vincent,
Truth is often rude. It is direct and unkind, especially for anyone who has built themselves on a foundation of deception.
Your “truth” is not pure, because it is incomplete. It fails to address the other half of the equation.
As a male, I would like men who imagine that women are here for male sexual pleasure, to shut the fuck up and get the hell out of my universe. Maybe then women would have a chance to be women freely in the absence of that pressure.
You sound like me, 3 or more years ago, spouting off about abstracts which I only had a limited intellectual understanding of. I mean… fuck. “when this world is truly selfish, it will again be humane” is such a glorious non-sequitur that I nearly crapped my brain out of my nose. I assume you are using “truly”, “selfish”, “again” and “humane” in place of other words which would have made more sense, but I cant figure out what those words might have been…
My truth is pure because we’re talking about the best interests of women today and what men want (or what women assert men want after they go ahead and do what they want) has never been relevant to those interests. Women need to act in their own best interests and stop blaming their Self-defeating choices on men.
Women obsessively compete to attract men for a reason you’re seemingly unaware of. For some women, this reason is so overwhelming that they throw their entire lives away to pursue male interest. The clues are all right in front of your eyes. The reason women are competing with each other to catch men involves some biological truths suppressed for 5000 years of suppression-expression (the predictable phenomenon of suppressed desire eventually exploding with artificially-inflated intensity). And shame begat shame, literally.
As a man, I cannot take a girl seriously if she’s wearing makeup because I know what cosmetic deceit is all about and I don’t care for illusory lies intended to corrupt perception of reality. I value what is tangible and true; and beauty is in the eye of the conditioned beholder. There is no value to be found in fantasy (deceit); not in reality. So if I wanted a girlfriend who wasn’t motivated to deceive me or a mother of children who wouldn’t lie to them (because lies are needy malice that rots human minds, breaking them, making them insane or even worse; making them politely malicious), pray tell; where would I find such a human being? Where are girls who aren’t motivated to be combative and deceive me? Where are girls who don’t wear makeup? Where are girls who make up their minds?
And just quickly on the definition of Selfish; what you imagine to be Selfish is what your mother imagined to be Selfish. What you understand the definition of Selfish to mean isn’t relevant to what it means, in reality.
And in reality, to be humane is optimal (Selfish pursuit of the best interests of one’s Self). And in reality, to be inhumane is psychotically Self-defeating. Truth is the biological humane default. Lies are the corruption that is inhumane.
You are not being Selfish when you’re Self-destructive. You’re just committing suicide the hard way. Your mother, all mothers, the entire world is a little confused about Self and how to pursue one’s Selfish best interests (happiness). They kill each other to be happy. They lie to each other to be happy. They fight for no reason, just to be happy.
Trust me, I’m right. They’re all insanely confused.
JV, I’m sure you think you’re being frightfully mould-breaking and all, but oddly enough you sound eerily familiar … very much like an MRA, in fact, with a little minor tweaking. Most women will probably have better things to do than listen in awe to you telling them pompously how to be Real Proper JV-style women.
Oh, JV, JV! Please, please don’t waste any of your precious precious time searching! There is no woman alive, now or in the future, who will ever be good enough for you! Honestly, give up now and devote your life to Important Things; don’t ever try to form a relationship with a woman.
The women of the world will thank you for it.
[meta]
Jonny Vincent, do you realise the topic is online harassment of outspoken women rather than what women should be like, in your opinion?
Here: “Virtually every woman who publicly contributes to a political debate is subjected to virulent and largely anonymous online invective, or “trolling”. But it is far more than simply readers’ feedback. Trolling is intended to make women shut up – and to remind them their primary purpose is to be there for male sexual pleasure. Or not to be in public life at all.”
—
You’ve taken a sardonic comment quite literally, and lost sight of the plot.
why does one at once think while reading little jonny’s silly little diatribes that little jonny almost certainly doesn’t have a girlfriend?
or not one who lasts very long…
Considering the women JV describes exist all over the friggin place, I must conclude that A) he is one of those guys who define women as ‘this particular tiny subset that I personally am attracted to’ and has a few things wrong with him (as they say, the only common factor for all of your relationships is you), or B) he’s just talking out of his ass.
JV
The OP is about how women, expressing their interests, are often targeted for abuse and threats of violence by men who would rather they didn’t.
While you may easily proclaim that women should be ‘selfish’ in a manner which improves their lot, the fact of the matter is a lot of other men are running around threatening to kill or rape women who do exactly that.
And these men do not always stop at threats either.
One could comfortably criticize internalized sexism, in fact a fair chunk of feminist literature does exactly that, however this story is not about that..
Further one must note that pure selfishness does not generally lead to utopia so much as maintaining the status quo. In a situation where there is an oppressor and the oppressed, the oppressed often find that speaking up incurs a heavy cost and that it would be much easier for them to keep their mouths shut.
The personal risk-reward analysis favours maintaining the status quo, no matter how awful it may be, because nobody wants to be made an example. Otherwise standing up would be easy.
There is a reason that objectivism is most popular amongst upper middle class white male conservatives.
Fortunately a lot of people are able to see beyond their own personal self-interest and fight for what is right for all, taking on a heavy cost for themselves that others may prosper in a world that is more just and more equitable.
Shorter J. Vincent: “I’m a knuckledragger spouting evopsycho pseudo-factoids and I want everyone to notice that I pee myself in public to show how manly I am!”
Athena,
You nailed it. That’s JV in a nutshell.
Tim Harris @8:
That’s unjust. I’m sure that, like Gen. Jack D. Ripper, he does not avoid women, but he does deny them his precious bodily fluids.
Umm, maybe they’ve made up their minds to avoid you and your “my pure truth is black and white”, “on a soap box shouting at a wall”, adolescent mansplaining?
Wanting an honest girl who isn’t determined to leverage [doing what she wants to do] into leaching doesn’t seem unreasonable.
It isn’t my opinion that truth is sane and lies are insane. An opinion that isn’t true isn’t a valid opinion. Outspoken women need to start telling the truth. Women are purging honest girls with lies and slut-shaming to protect their [Self-exploitation]. It is not in Humanity’s interests for this to continue.
We are talking about the welfare of billions of humans. I assure you I am not relevant. But it is impossible to have a meaningful relationship with anyone who values deceit. Call me crazy! But that is a logical truth.
I assure you that women are all wearing makeup and clothes to conceal (by definition, concealment is deceit). I am not talking out of my ass. This is a universal trait of women who have been victimised by the rolling 5000-year-old lies of misogyny. The lies told to girls by women must end.
Your post is valuable, thanks. I appreciate the very real nature of the evil that is blasted at women who speak truth but my argument is that it’s sourced from women (and the sons of women who’ve lied to their children about the biological nature of women). Humans reflect their mother’s value system. Men who believe women should be oppressed will have a mother who has embraced the lies of misogyny.
It’s the lies told to children that corrupt everything. Mothers could tell their children truth without risk, right? I’m not saying mothers facilitate the subjugation and oppression of Humanity. I’m saying they are the oppressors.
Will no one think of the welfare of billions of humans?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I’m a woman. I do not wear makeup. I wear clothing for the purpose of comfort and legalities.
By my very existence, I demonstrate that you are talking out of your ass. However, I am also not the slightest bit unique in these traits.
I have never had a woman stop me in the street to comment on my clothing choices. I have never had a female superior say anything to me regarding my not wearing makeup. I have had men do both. You are still talking out of your ass.
Somebody apparently has a mommy problem.
Wind up any crank enough, and the most amazing things spring out of them.
Very very small at one end, very very big in the middle, then very very small at the other end.
http://youtu.be/U6zWjUhfj-M
Obviously a lot to laugh at in his the above comments by JV, but this sort of jumped out at me for whatever reason. Has JV never considered that deceit is often a tool of self-protection? If he sits down and thinks really hard, he might even be able to come up with a few examples out of his own experience.
Or, he could look at the actual definition of concealment:
And why oh why would anybody ever want to do that?
But you, sir, have an understatement problem! 🙂
Last blockquote meant to be responding to Kevin @ 19, just to be clear.
Once again, short J Vincent to spare neurons: “I live in my mom’s basement, so I have lotsa time to regurgitate Tarzanist Randroid platitudes and admire the pee spatters on my pants!”
(from a woman who has never worn makeup or exercised her “female reproductive desires”)
You would find women like that on the dating site for Ayn Rand fans, which is here. If they’re not there then they’re probably someplace else.
But you’re asking the wrong question. Instead of saying, “Where can I find a woman who meets my standards?” you should be asking yourself. “What can I do to meet the standards of the sort of woman who would meet my standards?”
Jonny Vincent,
If wearing make-up counts as “lying” because it alters how a person would otherwise look, can I assume you’ve never had a haircut? Never shaved? Never cut you finger- or toe-nails? Do you not brush your hair in the morning? Did you never have braces on your teeth? Do you wear the cheapest and most practical clothing with no regard whatsoever for your appearance? Did you choose your watch because it is the simplest and most reliable and not for any aesthetic qualities it may have?
When you can answer “yes” to every one of those questions, and about a hundred others, I’ll take your “simple black and white” truth about women wearing make-up seriously. Or don’t you judge yourself by the standard you apply to others?
If you’re telling the truth, I’m impressed. Now tell the truth about female reproductive desire to prepubescent girls so that they don’t get the wrong idea and imagine they’re abnormal or perverted when they hit puberty. That would also require telling the truth to men, of course; is that going to be a problem?
Pray tell, why do mothers need Selfless love from their children? Everyone knows that love blinds. Why do mothers need children to be blind? What grounds does a leech have to claim her children’s achievements as her own? Why can’t she achieve for herself?
Why should children make their mother proud? What legitimacy does she have and why wouldn’t she be proud at their happiness living for themselves? Why should children impress their mother? Why should they seek her external validation? What are her expressed feelings and opinions worth if she is a dependant like her children?
Only slaves work without remuneration. No one talks about it but there was a lot of love in the South prior to the Emancipation Declaration. When John Brown took Harper’s Ferry in 1859, he and his men controlled 100,000 rifles with only a few drunken townspeople firing pot shots at the fortified armory. He was thus able to free all the slaves in Virginia. Of course, there were no slaves in Virginia in 1859. Everyone was right where they wanted to be. They were family.
John Brown was a good man but he didn’t understand how slavery ‘works’. Slaves only know what they’ve been told and slaves will sooner die for those who’ve imposed their need for love than take freedom when it’s handed to them. Slavery = Selfless love. The two are indelible.
“If you truly loved yourself, you could never hurt another.”
– the Buddha
Yes I was obviously correct. To keep [what is true] from being seen, found, observed or discovered is to deceive. Only those who value deception get confused about what is true.
To sell sex by inducing artificially-inflated desire with the intent to leveraging it into proof of love. Aside from the irrefutable fact that there has never been a biological need for women to blind humans or induce emotional vulnerability prior to being able to have sex (if a girl likes you – trust me – she doesn’t need to know your name), men will prove their love in various ways which all amount to [paying for sex] and women will prove their love how?
Clothes are worn to conceal (a mother’s) shame of pure, human DNA to enable manipulation of desire; i.e. sell sex. 5 million years of winning code Naturally Selected for superiority precluded the need for shame and yet the shaming of honest toddlers and honest girls (who’ve done nothing wrong) rolls on.
No doubt such a woman in this world of ‘slut’-shaming honest girls (who give away what the shamers want to sell) would be out of my league. I am irrelevant. Honesty is not “my standard” to be imposed upon women. Truth is the biological default. Wanting truth is not an imposition. Lies are the imposition imposed upon honest girls, honest men and honest children.
I don’t wear affectations or accessories and clothes are an imposition of Society; I do not seek to impress anyone but myself. But you’re conflating [concealment for the purpose of deception] with [hygiene]. You’re very confused but you have touched on an important subject; the obsession humans have with creating illusions which are not true to impress others rather than focusing on being impressive by impressing themselves.
It’s the difference between fantasy and reality; dependence and independence; slavery and liberty. Humans do not need sleazy creeps validating and manipulating them with their approval or disapproval. Humans need to internally validate themselves or they will be disposable.
Jonny Vincent,
You are ill. Please seek help.
Jonny Vincent, leaving aside that your theory of women (which is yours) is risible to actual women, again I tell you it’s not the topic here.
(Well, it wasn’t before you derailed it)
—
This is what the post is about:
Everything I’m saying is On Topic. I’m explaining that women who are outspoken would have a lot more legitimacy if they spoke out against true tyranny; mothers who lie to children about the biological nature of women; women who ‘slut’-shame honest girls for giving away what they want to leverage into leaching; women who blame men for all their malice (as if men were holding a gun to their heads, making women lie to men).
I’m telling you it’s mothers who have the gun to the heads of children and women who have a gun to the heads of men. This is a world drowning in the lies of those who imagine an entitlement to be malicious and combative. You don’t need to counter my logic if you cannot; but you should then want to tentatively accept it. There is no power to be found in dependency. There is no value in reducing those you’re reliant upon for value. There is no happiness to be found in leaching. So when outspoken women blame the sons of mothers who damaged them with lies, it’s risible to actual humans.
Um, yeah, ok
* Shamelessly stolen from wmdkitty at Mehta’s place.
That last sentence of yours, JV, carries the implication that women (or some sub-set of women) are not actual humans.
Was that what you intended to say?
Johny you wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and bit your balls off. Thank you though for admitting that you’re a selfish little prick as well as demonstrating that you’re a clueless git.
To get back to the topic at hand I think Ophelia’s tactic of documenting the harassment is very effective. It seems to drive the little twerps in to incoherence. It might enhance the effect if fopr the anonymous trolls we set up a little contest with fun prizes for the person who could out these wastes of protoplasm.
What I would like to do is apply extensive electroshock therapy to their genitals but as I’m in a really anti-social mood right now that idea should probably be ignored.
I didn’t derail anything. I’m explaining why outspoken women are trolled and it would be telling if no one was interested in why these women are subjected to unacceptable verbal abuse and threats; don’t you agree?
Outspoken women are invariably targeted because they’re victim-blaming and the victims they’re blaming are understandably sick of it. Soraya Chemaly generates all that anger and hatred in men who are the victims of lying, violent mothers and reduced by a lifetime of needy imposition and disapproval from women. They’re taking out their frustration on women like Soraya because her outspoken lying is indecent. That they should be more civil when expressing their PoV is a given; but Soraya shouldn’t be lying. They don’t really know any better; she does. She’s trolling victims of imposition. She’s the first offender.
That’s simply indecent. We live in a Polite Society, not a Civil Society. You can have one or the other; you cannot have both. Women have chosen Polite for a reason; civility requires truth and fairness. I have met civil women but they are few and far between; most women drop the pretence of civility and become abrasive, abusive, offensive and even violent when their imagined entitlement to lean on men they’ve been reducing with lies and emotional sleaze for a decade or two is challenged.
There will be no civility until the need for lies is arrested. Mothers can stop lying to children. Women can stop slut-shaming honest girls. Girls can stop accepting favourable treatment from desperate johns. You can’t have your cake and eat it as well. Soraya needs to stop trolling victims or they’ll keep reacting. This is the reality. It is what it is.
Only mothers can free Humanity from lies and violence. I speak nothing but logical truth but all these trolls would assert that I was trolling. He said, she said? Not quite. One side is making a logical argument. The other side is screaming puerile abuse.
The truth is evident. Everything I’ve said is On Topic. Only those who weren’t interested in understanding why there is conflict would imagine otherwise.
I’m letting Jonny Vincent put his horribleness on the record, for now, by way of documenting the horribleness. But he’s pushing it. I may stop letting him, soon.
Absolutely not. Men who are inhumane have no claim to human status either. Humanity is exclusive to humans. Those who seek to take advantage of other humans are not humane. To be human, one must be humane; I fail to see how gender has anything to do with it.
I hope I’m not too late!
But we are not to speak about the inhuman and their inhumane actions until all mothers teach all daughters not to wear makeup or otherwise conceal themselves (lie) because then there will be no more inhumans acting inhumanely because the desires brought on by these concealments (lies) are stopped when all mothers teach all daughters to be their true selves according to the truths you have revealed?
and
.
Wow, I thought this person
but now I see their brain is even more of a cesspit than at first appeared.
No doubt such a woman in this world of ‘slut’-shaming honest girls (who give away what the shamers want to sell) would be out of my league. I am irrelevant. Honesty is not “my standard” to be imposed upon women.
Well, now. Maybe you should try to be a better person, then. I mean, there’s no point in wailing, “Why can’t I find an honest women” when you wouldn’t know what to do after you found one.
Truth is the biological default.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Mimicry is an important concept in biology. Human beings aren’t as bad as stick insects, but they still have a natural tendency to be dishonest when it’s in their best interest.
I think you’re arguing that dishonesty is wrong. That’s not biology; it’s ethics, which is a subset of sociology. Human societies draw a distinction between “good” dishonesty (Diplomacy) and “bad” dishonesty (Lying). Do you think that modern society has drawn the line in the wrong place? How do you think we should change things?
Also, have you seen this XKCD strip?
When mothers stop needing to impose upon children / stop needing children and women stop slut-shaming honest girls, we’ll be very nearly living in utopia. The only thing preventing humans from living in a world without any genuine threats to our species is our species; or more specifically, those who are led to believe they have an entitlement to impose their existence on others.
I’m not wailing. It’s not in women’s interests to seek advantage over men nor is it in women’s interests to take advantage of children. This is not about me. Children rely on mothers to be their all-important mirror and they are brutally betrayed and made to feel dirty and ashamed so that they put on clothes; Self eroded so that they need love and need external validation and need to suffer to please (slaves). It’s madness. The imposition this world places on children is psychotic; it’s the source of all the nonsensical, needless violence by making humans predisposed to being combative rather than working in partnership.
If you lie to a child, you trigger a battle against that child’s existence. The child isn’t confused; the trauma is so great it’s wiped clean for survival reasons but from the moment of betrayal, the child is in a fight to survive. Parents are so sleazy with their lies to children, but children die from their parents lies all the time.
They died to make their mothers proud; as if expressed feelings could ever have intrinsic value.
This is incorrect. Firstly, mimicry isn’t really comparable to malicious cannibalistic deceit. It’s protection from other species. Humans are atop the food chain; fighting psychotically and killing and enslaving each other and their young for no (good) reason.
There is a natural tendency to be honest. Lying is a malicious, predatory corruption of the Natural Order. Deceit is a function of fighting to survive. There is no need for it.
Human societies are insane. There is no such thing as good deceit. It’s psychotic rationalisation of malice. You can file deceit under any heading you like, needless lies and needless violence (leeches) have turned a utopian world into our hellish surreal reality. We are being Naturally Deselected as we race towards M.A.D. (with limited liability). The need is out of control. No one is happy. No one is truly living (or truly alive). Everyone is fighting to survive in a world of abundance without threats.
My argument is that lies are Self-defeating but women don’t want to give up the icing of misogyny. They don’t want to give up their imagined, illusory source of power over men. They’re not happy; if they were happy, they wouldn’t be seeking advantage at the expense of Humanity > themselves. No one is happy because of the lies. They devalue everything and make life itself worthless.
Absolutely, ‘modern’ society has drawn nearly every line in the wrong place. It’s a question of (corrupted) values. God is not good. I don’t care what religious persuasion anyone is; the God of the 3 major religions (Yahweh Shibboleth) is a psychotic, demented, murderous, emotionally insane, needy, child-killing Toddler pretext used by leeches to justify their needy cannibalism.
Deceit is not nice. It is antisocial, by definition.
Selfless love is slavery. It is antisocial, predatory malice that is used for exploitation. No one has ever been able to explain the need to blind children. It’s good for War.
Women like sex. For thousands of years, mothers have been perpetuating the lie that says women don’t like sex. The biological truth is that they like sex a great deal more than men; but they lie for a combination of reasons that seem to start with prepubescent girls being conditioned to believe that [the natural desire they’ll feel during puberty] is shameful and wrong. This is purging. Women are purging their competition. Honest girls that like sex are a threat to women who’ve been selling the non-biological lie of commitment and attachment to men (binding of men to their side with social and legal imposition / slavery). Married women cannot compete with the threat honest girls who like sex represent.
So they take them out in a rolling purge of shame. Generation after generation; women burned by the lies about how Real Women are supposed to feel desire burn the next generation with the same lies. This madness needs to end.
The XKCD writers should take a look at the Bonobo monkeys (our 98.7% DNA match). Truth is always pure and always simple; only the needy lies create drama. I’m saying there is no need for lies and violence. It’s an introduced corruption borne out of imagined need (shame).
Technically no. This attitude/idea (that women don’t like sex) has been around only for the last couple of hundred years in Western societies, and doesn’t hold universally across all cultures. In mediaeval Europe, for instance, it was generally held that women were more sexually voracious than men and if it weren’t for us horrible temptresses men would spend their time in noble and pure pursuits. It fascinates me the way the Victorians had this completely reversed, and the way we seem to have absorbed it (until relatively recently anyway) so thoroughly.
Also your use of ‘women’ vs ‘girls’ is kind of disturbing.
Like suffering to please their leaching mother, seeing to her welfare and yearning but for a kind word from her angelic lips? Bless their cotton socks, I can imagine who would’ve had a problem with horrible temptresses distracting men from their filial duties and responsibilities.
God bless the Real Men
I’m not a very good writer but is Her Majesty’s Finest hopelessly limited or is it merely my vocabulary?
men, boys, guys, lads, fellows, blokes, dudes, chaps
women, girls, ?
“ladies” I cannot use without getting flashbacks of “Christian ladies” giving me the hard sell when I lived in 95% Catholic Philippines for a couple years. These were flesh traders, unabashed, shameless; polite to every nauseating fault. These horror shows would talk up their daughter’s ‘virtues’; always the same ‘values’ which they seemed to imagine men could or would be willing to purchase (pure, chaste, respectful, demure, sober, pious, God-fearing [read: husband-fearing], eager to please, holding no firm opinions [vomit], etc). These filthy creeps would ooze sleaze talking up the ostensible pros of their daughters and downplaying the ostensible cons as if their children were “used cars” which had been reconditioned and refurbished for sale “as new”. I was apparently supposed to be a knowing Christian slave buyer, compassionate and understanding but nevertheless keen to make a shrewd purchase of a young, impressionable child. Granted, these children had made some mistakes, I was made to understand; they’d made some poor choices (haven’t we all) but had since shown promising remorse and repentance and with the right combination of time, patience and discipline, I was led to believe I might yet mould them to echo everything I said or felt and, in time – God willing, of course – there was no foreseeable reason preventing them from serving as a perfectly serviceable mindless sex doll / surrogate for children.
I couldn’t work out why they imagined any guy in the world could want to purchase such horrifying shells of former humans until I realised that guys who purchased brides would. God-fearing Christian men who know the value of a pure and chaste woman would. Damaged, deceived, abused men; the sons of mothers who raised them to respect women who respected themselves enough to be sold with minimal wear and tear (preferably in new or unused condition but The Perfect Virgin is a rare commodity these days, what with values all corrupted and ankles exposed and all that immoral debauchery). I was being sold pre-loved goods, I was made to understand this in horrifically earnest fashion. They wanted me to understand I was dealing with honest, God-fearing folk. They weren’t trying to pull the wool over my eyes or pull a fast one. They wanted me to appreciate that.
Apparently I was a man who’d been raised to Know a woman’s place is in the kitchen and the bedroom, tending to her man’s needs (shiver). A man who loves deeply and passionately and could be assured of exclusivity because there is nothing more horrifying than the prospect that my property might – gasp! – have fun without me. The humanity! I’d probably have to stone The One and Only to death for that sort of betrayal, I imagine; if I were the sort of man who’d been raised to Know that Real Men bring home the bacon for their families of well-behaved child slaves who only speak when spoken to, are seen rather than heard, who respect not what is correct but rather whomever holds the rod and isn’t afraid to use it – well-behaved, promising child slaves as can be expected when children are raised Right by a Real Woman in a fiercely private family home.
Home is where the heart is, I know; but whatever do mothers do with the leftover minds?
I realised that – of course – Christian mothers would know what men who purchased their daughters would want. What is being raised Right if not [being raised to a consistent template of agreed-upon values]? The Christian mothers knew exactly what I would want if I was a buyer, they could raise either or both; the emotionally-traumatised, bullied, farcically quick to take offence, violent if not treated with the respect that is their due (after all, they’ve earned it!), sensitive and delicate BIG & STRONG desperate, needy, sex-starved johns (who were buying with their slave wages)….and / or…the amoral, role-playing, callous, calculating SWEET & DELICATE cunning, conniving whores (who were being sold).
“What is truth?” *teehee*
The truth is Christian mothers raise the Supply for the Demand they’ve raised. So they didn’t need to ask me what I valued; they just Knew that if I was looking to buy, they had just the thing….voila! Their daughter, raised to reflect my value system. What luck!
But I don’t buy human property. There is no value in needy and I have no need for any.
Christianity is a self-perpetuating slave trade. Children and emotionally-damaged men are mercilessly exploited by shrewd leeches working-in-tandem; mothers and priests (so diabolically crafty and cunning in their avoidance of work they never did get around to the game theory outcome of reducing the value of those you rely upon for value). And recursion is finite.
“Young lady” was how they’d all describe their daughters whether referring to them or directly engaging them with prompted questions intended to prove some emphatically asserted truth. The “young ladies”, for their part, would morph into their practised (or drilled) roles when the hard sell would begin in earnest (eyes cast down, shy, bashful, head slowly coming up in an attempt to catch my gaze – for a blush and a quick look away, no doubt – before slowly creeping up to catch my gaze again; I could see all this going on in the periphery as I’d stare at an honest-to-God, 21st century, Christian flesh trader talk up their commodity’s ‘values’ hoping to convince me of the object’s ‘worth’). They never had any luck, the poor waifs; and I was aware that they would no doubt be blamed for failing to ignite any latent passions in me but I just couldn’t give them the polite interest they desperately needed to stave off an angry mother (who would be understandably frustrated by their inability to move spoilable merchandise taking up valuable warehouse space). I could see their daughters’ eyes growing in panic and they’d start screaming silently, pleading with me to just go through the motions and feign interest. I understood their position but I just couldn’t. I just couldn’t help them out.
I do feel shitty about it. I know how some would have been beaten for having failed to elicit my desire but I just couldn’t gaze or peer with that kind of interest at asexual children, some of whom were as young as 8.
nb. I was offered hundreds and hundreds of girls for sale; I doubt many – if any – were older than 16. With only a couple exceptions, it was always mothers selling their daughters. The rare exceptions were older sisters selling their younger sisters, probably for the mother; just trying to do their best having failed themselves to do the Right thing and sell, now a liability and a burden as they’d be over the hump and no good for sale – no good for anything, really; just useless bodies who’ll never get their fairy tale buyer – no longer their mother’s best foot put forward for sale, probably unsellable at the spinster age of 22 or whatever.
You feminists have got the wrong enemy. Or is it just the same old ‘enemy’? Men have always been a disappointment, I’ll give you that. But if you saw the mothers who raised them…