In other news, water is wet and other galaxies are unfeasibly far to walk to.

[theweaselking]

My only comment on the "geeks, unbathed and stinking of desperation, really want to touch breasts and you're a bad person if you don't let them touch yours, you senseless subhuman breast-carrier unperson" issue is taken, directly, from the Head Loser himself.

"Unfortunately, I can't decry the process of "asking repeatedly," mainly because it's the only stimuli a lot of women respond to. Frankly, I think any woman who has to be begged fifteen times before she eventually accepts should be drug into the back alleyways and beaten, because her rampant need for a string of pleadings trains the wrong sort of men that no doesn't mean no. "

Come ON, people. The dude's the archetypical convention-goer. He's a Nice Guy(tm), just ask him and he'll tell you all about it. He's a Fan(tm), with everything that implies.

Did any of you seriously expect better?

EDIT: Added more of the quote, for context. Without the context, it could be (and was, at least once) read as "Women should be badgered because that's the only way some of them will say yes, and that's silly. Women who say no more than once should be raped", instead of the more accurate "Women should be badgered because that's the only way some of them will say yes, and that's silly. That attitude causes rapists, and so women with that attitude should be made to stop. Because men won't understand."

The attitude is still repugnant, but the repugnant message is clearer.

Comments

[psyco-path.livejournal.com]

No

I could add more, but even that is pointless.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Nope.

Interesting, the comments on that post. Thanks for linking to it.

self-awareness: he's doin it rong

[kadath.livejournal.com]

Did any of you seriously expect better?

I always knew he was going to trip himself up with his own issues, but I didn't expect it to happen so spectacularly.

*points and laughs*

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The post I'm linking is from *2005*.

If you go looking, you can find his "They're not rapists! They're enthusiasts!" post.

[hypatiasghost.livejournal.com]

*shudders* I actually defended, not him, but the spirit in which he claimed that the Open Source Boob Project was created in. ... blagh!

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

Seconded, and yipe.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

to be fair, his initial post about the open source boob project was fine in and of itself. taken as a stand alone piece, I didn't mind it one bit and the wild knee jerk complaints I thought were needless. It bothers me when someone is so repressed that they can't imagine other people not secretly being repressed themselves, which is what a lot of that was.

Sure, it could be the case that nobody present was comfortable at all and Ferrett just thought they were, but that's not the story we were told, so I don't think it's worth noting.

but that doesn't excuse everything he's ever said. he and I have gotten into it a few times. I certainly don't always agree with him, but he's interesting to read.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

*boggles at the entry tags*

This is for real?

You know, the whole thing where he's saying that a quote which equates "dressing sexy" with "coming across as a whore" sums it all up for him is really... uhm... wow. There's just so much "people who want to be sexy are bad" and "people who try to be attractive are filthy teases" in that that... that...

*Wow.*

(Sorry, I'm being incoherent.)

And I want to give the little driplet a clue-by-four about the repeated begging he's decrying. Teaches men that no doesn't mean no? Asshole, anyone who asks fifteen times already thinks that no doesn't mean no!

(Has it not occurred to him that women may decide that it's better to say yes on the sixteenth question because no is not being accepted and it'll probably hurt less if you say yes rather than risk having your no brutally ignored? Because it feels less awful to be able to think that you made a bad decision than to that you were raped? Oh, no, wait, that requires thinking of women as people, rather than Mere Denying Guardians of the Sacred Poontang.)

Christ.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

He's set to allow other people to tag his entries.

This is useful - for example, if I wanted my entries tagged, I'd damn well not want to do it myself. I'd want anyone going through my back catalog to be able to tag the entry appropriately.

But, if you don't restrict it, there's no reason for anyone be be stuck tagging "appropriately"

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

(Has it not occurred to him that women may decide that it's better to say yes on the sixteenth question because no is not being accepted and it'll probably hurt less if you say yes rather than risk having your no brutally ignored? Because it feels less awful to be able to think that you made a bad decision than to that you were raped? Oh, no, wait, that requires thinking of women as people, rather than Mere Denying Guardians of the Sacred Poontang.)

And yet, when that was explained to him - AND HIS WIFE - they just didn't get it.

And better...his wife is a LAWYER. Gods, I hope it's the sort of law that doesn't require her to go after human detritus and lock it up. She's all about victim blaming, just like he is. Talk about a match made in Hell.

My response in his journal:

[elffin.livejournal.com]

"Frankly, I think any woman who has to be begged fifteen times before she eventually accepts should be drug into the back alleyways and beaten, because her rampant need for a string of pleadings trains the wrong sort of men that no doesn't mean no."

Goodbye, benefit of the doubt.

Read. My. Words. Very. Carefully.

Rape. Is. Never. In. Any. Way. Shape. Or. Form. Ever. Under. Any. Circumstances. Ever. Under. Any. Cultural. Condition. Ever. The. Victim's. Fault.

If that seems arse-clenchingly sincere, then I have made my intent clear.

You're being an apologetic. for. rapists.

{Dr. Perry Cox mode ON}

Listen up, Sheila. This is going to be the very last time You and I ever have this kind of little chat. If I ever see you approaching at a convention I and my wife are attending, you will learn to contemplate the consequences of your actions.

No means No. It does not mean "Keep asking me and maybe I'll say yes just so I can stop having to deal with you in public."

Advocating it is creepy, but advocating that women who have the gall to refuse your advances should be physically assaulted?

Wow. Just, Wow.

Stay away from me and mine.

{Dr. Perry Cox mode OFF}

Re: My response in his journal:

[psyco-path.livejournal.com]

/signed

Re: My response in his journal:

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Rape is never the victims fault. I tend to dislike dealing in absolutes, but even on this count I have a hard time thinking of a situation where it's not true, so we'll run with it.

But was he talking about rape there? Because it sounded to me like he was talking about a woman who had willing sex, but made the guy beg for it to the point where it felt like badgering before she agreed.

Sure, that can be a type of rape. And it can also be a woman who just felt like making a guy jump through hoops. those exist, too. And I do hate those, because women who say "no" when they mean "later" or when they mean "I want to make sure you really want me to make myself feel better" are part of the problem. that exact situation is part of what actual rapists use to get themselves off the hook and that is sick.

I'd prefer that people were honest. I think all guys would rather hear "Yes, after you make me feel better about it" than a no that doesn't mean what society tells us it should.

[cpt-babypants.livejournal.com]

I have no idea who this guy is, but I know his type. My parents were Trekkies and took me to Sci Fi conventions from the time I was 12. This is the kind of guy who would shamelessly hit on me at the age of 14 when he was at least in his thirties.

It was icky, but I have developed awesome creepy predator radar.

I really don't know what's more bothersome; the fact that he said it or the fact that not many people really appear to be calling him out on it.

[dolston.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure calling him out on it would do much good. Macing him or pumping a handful of S&W .40 would be far more useful. He strikes me as the kind of person who will quickly assume you are "with them" if you try to point out that he is advocating sexually deviant and terrorizing behavior.

The best reaction seems to be to make sure you are clear when you say no to him and nothing is cleared than a sucking chest wound or severe chemical burn when words aren't enough.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Well, let's actually quote the entire paragraph:

* - Unfortunately, I can't decry the process of "asking repeatedly," mainly because it's the only stimuli a lot of women respond to. Frankly, I think any woman who has to be begged fifteen times before she eventually accepts should be drug into the back alleyways and beaten, because her rampant need for a string of pleadings trains the wrong sort of men that no doesn't mean no. And then we should go beat up the men for good measure.

It is badly written and conveyed and makes light of potential horror. I am not a fan of this paragraph.

However, it is not an indictment of women or endorsement of entitlement, it is the decrying of "playing hard to get" as something that sends the wrong signal and trains a segment of society to not accept 'no' as the final word.

I wouldn't have written it this way, and I didn't like this essay of Ferrett's any more than you did, but Ferrett's not advocating what you're implying here, and confusing the issue doesn't help anyone. You hardly need selective context to make the case you're making here.

[kadath.livejournal.com]

Dude, every time he writes something about sex, he has to come around later and defend it with "no no I didn't mean it like that!" At some point you gotta figure he's either a terrible writer, or no, really, he did mean it like that.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Or you could look at his previous posts, and his later posts, and the full text of that post, and come to the conclusion that the picture-perfect Nice Guy attitude of the bit I quoted is entirely typical.

He's spent that entire post arguing that if you don't want to get drooled on by poorly-socialised idiots, you should wear a fucking burka to avoid having any part of you found attractive and commented on with an equivalent to "hey, nice ankles, wanna fuck? How about now? How about now? How about now?"

And, of course, it's the WOMEN'S fault that pathetic losers keep begging them, because they wore the UNIFORM that said they MIGHT be a prostitute, and all those OTHER dirty cock-teasers said no a bunch of times first because they were needy and wanting to hear pleading, so it's totally not the guy's fault that they've now got a Pavlovian response to keep asking endlessly.

I know you know him and his wife in person and think they're great people.

It's entirely possible that they really are great people, in person, and that he's nothing like the privileged, misogynist, entitled, Nice Guy troglodyte he plays on the internet. It's also possible he's really Wesley Snipes.

But he plays that guy on the internet, picture-perfectly, constantly, without EVER breaking character, and has done so for *at least half a decade*. Every single time he writes, that character comes through clearly around the edges of everything he's saying, and he keeps "accidentally" dropping hints that it's there even in unrelated articles.

I feel totally, completely, 100% comfortable in saying that he *really is* that person in all ways that are meaningful to me, and that my choice of quote was a suitable, complete, perfect exemplar of his personality and politics.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

No means No. Using his line of reasoning and making it non-inherently-sexist, the person who asks fifteen times in a row is conditioning women to expect to be asked "Can I Sex You Yet?", repeatedly, in public.
Making the same argument with the same reasoning from the point of view of a woman, it would be "Unfortunately, I can't decry the process of refusing repeatedly, mainly because it's the only way to keep a man's attention. Frankly, I think that any man that can't be bothered to ask fifteen times before I'll accept should be publickly mocked as impotent and gets what he deserves, because saying "Yes" too soon trains the wrong sort of men that "no does not mean no" - "
It's not that it is badly written. It's that he is advocating physical violence towards women as a valid response to their own dating behaviours.
The deeply angry and bitter side of me thinks he should be broiled in his own sauce - taken out back and beaten.
It won't happen.

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

However, it is not an indictment of women or endorsement of entitlement

Of course it is.

"because her rampant need for a string of pleadings trains the wrong sort of men that no doesn't mean no."

It's not a woman's job to make men understand that no doesn't mean no, much like it is not a train's job to make you understand that getting in front of it when it is speeding is a bad idea.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

You know? I really, really don't want to get into an argument supporting a thesis point of someone else's when I don't even agree with that thesis or that point.

However, if we take the point he's intending to make -- badly, but still comprehensibly -- at its face: "it's bad, in an environment where no should mean no, for some women to cling to 'no means try harder because eventually I'll give in'", it is defensible. It is also not an indictment of all women, again implicitly. And while I concur that it's not the responsibility of women to train men to accept 'no' at face value, saying "it's wrong for a woman to confuse the issue" is not endorsement of entitlement, unless you consider "people should answer questions honestly" to be an endorsement of entitlement.

My point is simple and blunt -- the quote in the post did not convey the intent of the paragraph, which weakens the argument Weaselking's putting forth. Which is ironic since he can easily make the case he's trying to make without selective quoting.

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

Great and terrible find. Thank you for sharing it.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

EDIT: Added more of the quote, for context. Without the context, it could be (and was, at least once) read as "Women should be badgered because that's the only way some of them will say yes, and that's silly. Women who say no more than once should be raped", instead of the more accurate "Women should be badgered because that's the only way some of them will say yes, and that's silly. That attitude causes rapists, and so women with that attitude should be made to stop. Because men won't understand."

You know, until you wrote that... I didn't really get, deep down, how unfair to women and men the paragraph is. Dude.

[skunkboy.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if its "should be badgered" or "will be badgered". Either way, its a one sided bit of blaming, with a big chunk of the trouble coming from a combination of ferrets privilege, his tendency to worry more about exaggerating for impact than editing for clarity, and a tendency to generalize from the self for groups that the writer belongs to (aaarg. bad bad phrasing there, anyone want to edit me for clarity?).

On reading the rephrase, I can see the reading I picked up from this, and this is not a paraphrase, this is the tendency of me to assume best intentions on the part of the writer, that is, this is me getting it wrong, is a little something like this "One of the reasons that women are badgered is because some of them will say yes, and that silly. That attitude makes some men more likely to badger women, some women should stop doing that."

strip that "unfortunately I can't decry" shit right out of there. Badgering is wrong, end of story. Unfortunately, some women contribute to a narrative on romance/sex/whatever that makes badgering more likely? That would work.

Pointing out that society as a whole contributes to this narrative, both through living it out, and through reflecting it in fictional portrayals of romance/sex/whatever, and it too should cut that shit out? Double points. And pointing out that women can be pressured by situations involving badgering, that sometimes the pressure makes turning that 15th no into a yes the best option, recognizing the pressure of the patriarchy? gold star.

Fuck, now I'm going to be compelled to sift through this stuff for where I got an impression of reasonable points, and figure them out, and then ask a few feminists to read over and figure out how I've let my privielge blind me. Because I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with anything that ferret said in some of these posts, or just with my projection on his words.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

This is so very, very disturbing.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

theweaselking vs. theferret: MUSTELIDAE BATTLE, FIGHT!