I couldn’t make this stuff up pt. 2…..

FAQ-What’s an MRA


Are Anglo American ‘Gay’ Men Just Priapic?


My Version of SchadenFreude: 1


Note: might want to see what the Great Wiki says about Sadistic Personality Disorder.

Yup, there are some crazies on the internet and I’m glad that it is highly unlikely that I will ever meet them In Real Life.

Intense Experience….


Well, I had always been curious about skydiving. I remember watching Headbangers Ball and seeing Dave Mustaine take his band on a jump years ago. It has stuck in my head.

I had done two tandem jumps about 5 years ago. I did another tandem jump today. The next step is something called the Accelerated Free Fall. You jump with two instructors who make sure that you pull your ‘chute. I don’t know if I am ready for that just yet. I don’t know if I will ever be ready. I still have butterflies in my stomach as I write this…..

The training for the jump was short and quick–basically don’t hit your head on the way out. I’m also grateful that I got to jump with a very professional instructor. Free fall was pure speed. Once the ‘chute opened things made more sense. Really, I’m at a loss to describe how it felt….

Rock On!

Stoner With a Boner

Arguing with David Futrelle


David Futrelle has a post entitled Are Nice Guys sociopaths

He references this dark article at Sociopathword: Sexual sadism (part 1)

“I don’t know what happened with me. I’ve always had a strong sex drive, but I got fucked over socially. I wasn’t even “in” in the reject crowd. All girls rejected me, and most rejects rejected me. People made fun of me, laughed at me, picked on me, and all the girls that I lusted after were either repulsed by me, or didn’t know who I was. Even the girls that were “friends” with me, wouldn’t have sex with me. Meanwhile, they went around whoring themselves out to whatever man played this fucking dumb-ass social flirting game. They sucked his cock, guzzled his cum, and opened their legs like the dirty little whores they are. I’ve been available my whole life, but the only person that ever chose me as a mate were paid prostitutes, and my wife, who is emotionally and mentally fucked up beyond comprehension.

This is the reason I don’t care about people. Why the fuck should I? Everybody wheres a mask. I want to rape and murder people, and I pretend I’m “normal.” Normal people wear a mask where they pretend they’re friendly and honest; whereas, they’re really deceptive, insecure, and emotionally hostile.”

Now, David takes these angry words and compares sociopaths to “Nice Guys TM.” Mr. Futrelle says, “The difference? For one thing, this new guy is a bit more self-aware than most “nice guys,” in that he doesn’t actually describe himself as “nice.” For another, he is (or at least claims to be) a sociopath.”

In the original article at Sociopathworld, some replies in the thread question whether the author is even a sociopath:

Refudiate said…

“I’m disappointed that this post had almost nothing to do with sexual sadism. Also the guy who wrote this is a terrible. I bet he doesn’t even have the guts to actually ask women out, he probably waits around for them to offer sex to him and gets angry when that doesn’t happen. Being angry and stupid is different than being a sociopath.”
August 19, 2011 6:23 AM

Now I did find some information on sociopaths at The Sociopathic Style –one trait that pertains to this:

“PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR — a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.”

I haven’t found a “clinical definition” of “Nice Guys TM” so I will use the article “What is a Nice Guy?” by Jeff Fecke as a “working definition.” In contrast, “Nice Guys” seem unable to get sexual relationships.

Here are some comments I left on Manboobs and Mr. Futrelle’s response:

stonerwithaboner | August 25, 2011 at 3:11 am

Well, I think you are a bit off on this one.

Conflating “Nice Guys” with Sociopaths—I don’t know about that….

One of the often mentioned characteristics of sociopath’s is their “promiscuity”–usually a few lines after glib, superficially charming….

Isn’t one of the determining characteristics of “Nice Guys” their inability to get sex?

As far as Sociopathworld…. interesting site but I wouldn’t take things left by readers there super serious. There is a checklist by Dr. Robert Hare to measure sociopathy–wouldn’t just go by what someone seeking attention on the internet is saying to determine a diagnosis….

If you want to read some of the aftermath stories of those unfortunate enough to get involved with sociopath’s go to lovefraud.com…..

Anyways, this just seems to be one more example of your twisted worldview where you try to putt one group of people you don’t like next to another group generally reviled by society….


Interestingly enough, you called sociopathy a disorder, it is considered a pathology by some but there are those who think there are evolutionary benefits and it is another mode of being….

In the book On Killing, David Grossman postulated that sociopath’s make great soldiers during wartime as they have little reluctance to kill and don’t seem to suffer from PTSD or shellshock….

I have also heard people mention that (yes, I know he is a fictional character) Dr. House may be a sociopath but his lack of empathy allows him to see clearly and also bend rules and ethics to get things done-perhaps benevolent sociopathy…..

There were a few comments which you will have to visit the original thread to view as I found them not very thoughtful.


stonerwithaboner | August 25, 2011 at 12:24 pm

Aspergers is a totally different thing than sociopathy–and while we’re at it schizophrenia is another thing entirely……

Don’t conflate things that are separate…..

How do you “know” that a “Nice Guy” is a closeted sociopath? Did you run Dr. Hare’s checklist on him?

If you have a problem with someone’s attitude towards women, then, by all means address that–don’t make a “diagnosis” you are unqualified to make……


Just an observation, someone may watch a movie like “American Psycho,” do some basic reading after about three or four hours scouring the web then go to a site and “claim to be a sociopath.”

Just like someone can go to a PUA forum and “claim to sleep with a hundred women”–just throw in a few buzzwords like kino, sarging and cold approach then go on to write some bad erotica…….


a few more comments lead me to write this-

stonerwithaboner | August 27, 2011 at 10:15 pm

y’know years ago I learned that there was a name for someone who enjoyed putting others down who had “social difficulties,” it was called BULLY…..

I guess you will have to call it “Bully TM” to make it kewlz on teh interwebz…….

David Futrelle responds….

David Futrelle | August 27, 2011 at 11:58 pm

Stoner, did you actually read my post? I didn’t claim that “nice guys” are sociopaths; indeed I specifically said they weren’t. I noted that some specific things about a posting by a sociopath reminded me of things I’ve seen “nice guys” say. (And by “nice guys,” I’m referring to a specific sort of guy who thinks he’s nice, but really isn’t, in part because he seems to have no empathy for the women he fixates on.) I could explain more, or you could jsut go back and read what I actually wrote.

And I’m most definitely NOT mocking people with social difficulties for having social difficulties. I’ve had social difficulties; practically everyone I know has dealt with them. Including women, of course.

I am mocking (or at least criticizing) guys with social difficulties who turn around and blame women for it all, getting angry that women actually — gasp! — get to choose who they go out with. Or feeling sort of glad an old crush got raped because she “had it coming.”

If a guy has social difficulties, and instead of turning into a misogynist creep, actually develops empathy for others with the same difficulties, that’s fantastic. It’s the awkward dudes who turn into hateful misogynist creeps I’m not so fond of.

My response to Mr Futrelle:

stonerwithaboner | August 28, 2011 at 1:13 pm


I did read your post.

I also read the post at Sociopathworld where many on the thread questioned whether the post was written by an actual sociopath or someone merely seeking attention. As I mentioned above, someone could easily claim to be a sociopath just as someone could easily go to a PUA forum and claim to have 100+ sex partners-doesn’t mean that either are authentic…..

“And I’m most definitely NOT mocking people with social difficulties for having social difficulties. I’ve had social difficulties; practically everyone I know has dealt with them. Including women, of course. ”

Maybe you didn’t specifically mock someone but No More Mr. Niceguy’s comments about Aspergers seemed to do so and there has been blowback in the thread–hence the bullying comment…..

“I am mocking (or at least criticizing) guys with social difficulties who turn around and blame women for it all, getting angry that women actually — gasp! — get to choose who they go out with. Or feeling sort of glad an old crush got raped because she “had it coming.”

Thanks for the clarification. I believe that you and Amanda Marcotte need to be much more clear when you describe “Nice Gus TM” as you may be trying to portray a “Shallow Hal” character and your readers, or at least I was seeing more of a “Forty Year Old Virgin” character. The view I get is that the “Forty Year Old Virgin” character doesn’t necessarily deserve tons of pity but it is extremely unfair to treat him with scorn…..
stonerwithaboner | August 28, 2011 at 1:15 pm

….that’s “Nice Guys TM”–my apologies to any Gus’s I may have offended 😉

I couldn’t make this stuff up…..

Anal Bleaching:


The Starter Husband:


Are Nice Guys Sociopaths:


Note: here’s a link to the traits of “real” sociopaths:


Yup, the internet is filled with crazies…..

So is real life…..


bull·shit (blsht) Vulgar Slang
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.

I just found a quote that is golden:

“Again, many MRA’s and feminists share a characteristic: they are bullshit artists. Misrepresenting and selective quoting is a problem both groups have and both of these things are ipso facto bullshit. If you’re misrepresenting or selectively quoting, you aren’t lying, but you certainly don’t care about the truth, either. You are bullshitting.”

Thaddeus Blanchette, “balls deep in ass” in a comment thread at The Good Men Project.

He also references this interesting essay:

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose”

-from Harry Frankfurt’s essay “On Bullshit”

Here’s a nice poem:

Ladies, on whom my attentions have waited
If you consider my merits are small
Etiolated, alembicated,
Orotund, tasteless, fantastical,
Monotonous, crotchety, constipated,
Impotent galamatias
Affected, possibly imitated,
For Christ’s sake stick it up your ass.

Ladies, who find my intentions ridiculous
Awkward, insipid and horribly gauche
Pompous, pretentious, ineptly meticulous
Dull as the heart of an unbaked brioche
Floundering versicles freely versiculous
Often attenuate, frequently crass
Attempts at emotion that turn isiculous,
For Christ’s sake stick it up your ass.

Ladies who think me unduly vociferous
Amiable cabotin making a noise
That people may cry out “this stuff is too stiff for us”-
Ingenuous child with a box of new toys
Toy lions carnivorous, cannon fumiferous
Engines vaporous- all this will pass;
Quite innocent, -“he only wants to make shiver us.”
For Christ’s sake stick it up your ass.

And when thyself with silver foot shall pass
Among the theories scattered on the grass
Take up my good intentions with the rest
And then for Christ’s sake stick them up your ass.

The Triumph of Bullshit – T.S. Eliot

Some more nice quotes:

“This CGI bullshit is the death knell of cinema. If I’d wanted all that computer game bullshit, I’d have stuck my dick in a Nintendo.”

-Quentin Tarantino

“I’ve been accused of vulgarity. I say that’s bullshit.”

-Mel Brooks

“Apparently people don’t like the truth, but I do like it; I like it because it upsets a lot of people. If you show them enough times that their arguments are bullshit, then maybe just once, one of them will say, ‘Oh! Wait a minute – I was wrong.’ I live for that happening. Rare, I assure you.”

-Lemmy Kilmister

…..nope, I’m not a scholar, I just know how to use Google and the cut and paste function, does that make me a good Bullshitter 😉

What is Patriarchy pt.4

As I had mentioned on the previous posts, I have still not come to a conclusion about what “patriarchy” is.

I have expressed my frustration over the concept and Ballgame had answered me at Feminist Critics.

Here is the reply:

August 13, 2011 at 11:42 am

“SWB, I completely sympathize with your frustration here. For being such a critical concept, feminists’ definitions/descriptions of it seem to be all over the map.

Realizing that my definition isn’t necessarily what anyone else uses, and that it may be one that you, personally, don’t agree with for whatever reason, would it nonetheless qualify as a “working definition” as you put it? Or is it too vague, from your point of view?

Patriarchy is a system of rigid rules and expectations around gender that unjustly overvalues certain qualities and undervalues others. Typically, dominant males are overvalued, and the average woman’s macropolitical agency is significantly constrained. (Patriarchal societies also frequently devalue the average man’s emotional value and possibly his micropolitical agency, though I don’t know whether this is necessarily a hallmark of patriarchy like devaluing the average woman’s political agency is)

What it sounds like you’re looking for — and I think it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to be looking for — is some kind of definition or checklist that someone could use to determine if any particular society is a patriarchy or not. I suspect going at it that way with a feminist that you might be discussing this with would be the way to go, i.e. “Explain how you would determine if any specific society or culture was not a patriarchy.” Now, you might not like their answer. Some might just rattle off a laundry list of gynocentric criteria that would include items that were either unrealistic or unfair to men. But at least you’d have an idea of what, for them, was their ‘working definition’ of patriarchy.”



What is Patriarchy Pt. 3

Recommended that you read Pt.1 first

This post features quotes from a Counter Feminist named Fidelbogen.

His article is entitled “What They Don’t Want You to Know”

“What do the feminists really mean by the term “patriarchy”? When this word rolls off a feminist tongue, what does it specifically refer to? Is it possible to discover what they are talking about in terms of the utmost clarity, simplicity, and above all usability, and reduce it to a formula that will smack the nail bang on the head every time?”

“Here is the secret: When feminists speak of patriarchy, all they are really talking about is male power. It’s just that simple. All of their circumlocutions dance endlessly and evasively around this—that patriarchy is exactly synonymous with male power, neither more nor less than male power, and that in all cases the terms patriarchy and male power may be interchanged with a negligible adulteration of meaning.”

“And exactly what is this thing called…power? That is a very good and very important question.

In the realm of human affairs, as near as we can make it, power is a substance compounded of two ingredients: IDENTITY, and AGENCY.

Identity means the sum of all factors, both mental and physical, which identify you as a discrete center of conscious awareness in contradistinction to other such discrete centers.

Agency means your capacity to either effect or prevent change through the exercise of your volition.”


“Gentle reader, you as a person posess identity and agency. In other words, you posess power. You mightn’t think you have enough of it, but you do have some. And so long as you have some, you have freedom. Again, possibly not enough for your liking…but some. And some is always enough to get you started—enough to leaven the dough, you might say. Be glad of it, and work intelligently with it.”

Part 4 will feature comments from Ballgame of Feminist Critics

What is Patriarchy pt.2

Recommended that you read pt.1 first.

Many times when arguing with Feminists, I had been told to visit Feminism 101 which, I believe is now the Finally Feminism 101 blog. This seems to be the go to site for various terms used by Feminists–though, by the site authors own admission, not the final word. I guess it is comparable to Wikipedia.

Here are a few quotes from Tigtog’s FAQ: Isn’t “the Patriarchy” just some conspiracy theory that blames all men, even decent men, for women’s woes?

“Historically, patriarchy operates through the disproportionate (sometimes exclusive) conferring of leadership status (and formal titles indicating that status) on men, a tradition characterised by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, no matter what talents and expertise they might possess (unless there are exceptional circumstances resulting from intersections with other social hierarchies conferring high status that gives rare women political authority e.g. the royal lineage of Elizabeth I, or the divine claim to authority of Joan of Arc). This view of women normalises the restriction of women’s opportunities and choices throughout the whole of society via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions.”


“Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others as these attributes add to his place in the elite social hierarchy.

Non-elite men do not generally actively conspire with Patriarchs (although they may aspire to become one): the patriarchal pattern however means that subordinate men are ranked above subordinate women in the traditional socioeconomic hierarchy from which Patriarchs skim the cream, meaning that men (as a group) benefit more from the injustices of Patriarchy than women do (as a group). This does not mean that superordinate women (by virtue of lineage/wealth) do not have concrete advantages and social privileges compared to subordinate men – this is where the intersecting rankings and dominations of the kyriarchy come in.”


“However, despite other circles of superordination, society is still structured along patriarchal lines of subordination in nearly all forms of organisations, to the great benefit of those at the top. The male elites, the magnates (currently white, but who knows what the next century will bring?), continue to wield disproportionate influence and power over the situations of other men and especially women.”

Again, if you haven’t read it there is an interesting discussion at Feminist Critics

Part 3 will have quotes from a Counter Feminist.