(h/t to Belledame for bringing this to my attention)
Everyone, meet Kyle Payne.
In his own words:
“Kyle is a social justice educator, writer, and activist. Much of his work is concerned with putting a stop to violence against women. For years Kyle has served as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence and other forms of abuse, in addition to promoting what he calls “a more just and life-affirming culture of sexuality” through activism and education. As a researcher, Kyle has studied the feminist anti-pornography movement and is particularly interested in men’s roles in confronting pornography and the rape culture. In addition to his pro-feminist work, he is involved with anti-racist, free speech, peace, and anti-globalization movements.”
You can also see Kyle’s educational merits, Honors and Awards, and his seemingly laudable activities.
If you take some time to read some of Kyle’s work, you will see he is very anti-pornography, has dedicated himself in many ways to educating men about the affects porn has upon them and fighting rape culture and stereotypes of masculinity, much like Robert Jensen. Kyle’s writing is moving, he’s been included in the Carnival Against Pornography and Prostitution, he links and praises many other anti-porn bloggers, and even, much like his Stop Porn Culture role models, does presentations on the harmful nature of pornography, which are, of course, non-2257 compliant and do not consider the feelings of the people in the images used.
Kyle, it would seem, is a good ally to feminists, to the anti-porn movement, and a strong voice out there speaking to men about how they must change for the betterment of not only women, but themselves.
But what about what you don’t know about Kyle Payne? Well, here is what people do not know about their understanding, groundbreaking male ally Kyle.
Kyle Payne was arrested for breaking into the room of and assaulting an unconcious female student at his University while he was a resident advisor. He plead guilty to felony attempted burglary in the second degree and two counts of invasion of privacy. Kyle Payne, feminist ally and enemy of pornography, agrees that "with an intent to arouse my sexual desire, I photographed and filmed Jane Doe and her breast without her consent."
Also, according to a thread at EleanorsTrousers, who was all over this story from the get-go, Kyle Payne was asked to leave BV University for having child pornography on his computer.
So, yes, meet Kyle Payne, a man who is staunchly against pornography, a man who is dedicated to men rethinking their views on sexuality, privilege, rape culture, and masculinity, a man who spent time as a Rape Crisis Advocate. A man who assaulted and photographed a unconscious young woman under his authority as a university resident advisor, for his own sexual gratification and without her consent. A man who had child pornography on his hard drive, a man who’s blog, The Road Less Traveled, is filled with angst and turmoil and emotion, condemnation for the exact sort of behavior he himself has engaged in.
That is the real Kyle Payne. Hypocrite of the worst kind.
And sure, you can go ahead and question my motives all you like, after all, according to many-a-anti-porn advocate, women in the sex industry speaking of their own experiences, unless they are the right experiences, cannot be trusted. We have sketchy motives and vested interests and what not, however, Kyle Payne’s actions speak for themselves. I’d have reason without those actions to dislike him, reasons such as assumption, denial of agency, illegal use of images, disregard of performers feelings, shock tactic language, and serious overgeneralization, the same reasons I dislike those who Kyle supposedly looks up to and takes as leaders: Dines, Jensen, Russell, so on. However, Kyle Payne’s own actions and deeds? Considering those, I do not see how any anti-porn advocate, “real” feminist, person concerned with feminist issues, or mere human, could take this man and make him or call him an ally of any sort.
Kyle Payne is no ally. He is a predator, abuser, and hypocrite. He is a man who talks about the evils of porn, listens to the stories of rape and assault victims, and vaunts his good deeds and ally status all the while being everything he is supposedly fighting against, everything women…be they rad fems or porn performers…fear.
Kyle Payne is not an ally. He’s an abuser. And he should be exposed as such.
More from Belledame
Tomorrow, 1pm est, Jill and I will be discussing Kyle Payne on XBNSWOP EAST radio
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

92 comments:
Hi to you - I'm new to your blog and want to say, heal soon.
But also, thanks so much for this post. What a nasty piece of work this guy is - but unfortunately, he represents a small but nasty group of supposedly pro-feminist men who get off counselling rape survivors and getting kudos from the feminists. I know it's all in retrospect now, but I think he overdoes his feminist credential establishing schtick on his blog. Even if he hadn't broken the law, I wouldn't like this guy.
But clearly, he's worse than a hypocrite, he's dangerous. I do hope the word gets out about him.
Wow - thanks for sharing this one, Ren. Somehow this doesn't surprise me. It fits the pop psych theory that those strongly anti-whatever (sex, porn, queer rights movement, etc.), those who condemn something publicly, are those who have struggled the most with it.
In other words they can't handle it, they have a bass-ackwards, dysfunctional and often illegal relationship with it, so nobody else gets any either - "I'm an alcoholic/abuser so you can't have a drink."
Sorry Kyle. Porn didn't make you fuck up. Being a selfish prick had more to do with it than OMG Big Scary Porn Titties! ever could.
Speaking of which - heal up safely and soon gal!
Wow! What a winner, this one. Do you know if he's done the favorite apology of conservative Christian hypocrites everywhere (e.g. Bakker, Falwell, et. al.), "Forgive me, I have sinned! ...All better now!"?
Go figure, he doesn't moderate posts. Or at least hasn't yet. I posted the article about his pleading guilty on his blog asking for an explanation.
Just posted. Yeah, I was gobsmacked. I mean, it's one thing to -think-, "you know, I don't really trust this guy," and another to be so -hideously- confirmed in one's cynicism...
I'd say this was amazing, but it makes too much sense. Kyle could use the photo in his presentations on "dehuminization". he can blame his actions on porn-rape culture. "De debbil made me do it."
As a bonus, he gets real close to people who are vulnerable either because they are victims or they want to self-identify as victims.
Jill: it looks like he did at one point have comments enabled, and then, surprise, at some point after the scandal broke, shut 'em down. I love how he keeps writing as though he has a faithful readership of Kyleketeers, though.
Holy bloody mother of dog.
On the one hand, this is exactly the kind of hypocrisy I've seen from a few people ["Penetration is patriarchal! My strap-on is fun!" "This slideshow may arouse you."] on a larger scale. So it doesn't surprise me.
On the other hand, it does surprise me in that I never expected I'd see something so bald-faced come to light. I always thought the evidence of hypocrisy would come as secret confessions of still watching porn or of enjoying those Hustlers after the slideshow... not of assault, like this. I thought maybe these sort were a little less dysfunctional than the Larry Craigs of the world.
Guess not.
God, this scares me.
If I had just been raped and was talking to a rape crisis counselor about what had happened...if I was trying to get advice on what to do...the LAST person I'd want to be talking to was another rapist. I don't care how long ago he did it.
This is a dangerous person.
This is why we don't believe people when they say that porn makes people do bad things. Some of them are just desperately trying to pretend it isn't they who made themself do bad things.
Thene- For Real. utter lack of personal responsibility on Payne's part, and that of a lot of other people. I mean hell, I watch and make a lot of rough porn, and I've never had a desire to sexually assault anyone, OR look at kiddie porn.
CONSENT and all.
He took down my post. What a surprise. However, a man like Kyle Payne deserves his 15 minutes of fame and will be the topic of discussion on XBN at 1 pm Eastern Wednesday www.xxbn.net
One thing I do notice is that Payne links to several of the people we've argued with (Maggie Hays, Laurelin) but I don't see anything yet on their blogs denouncing him.
Then again, they may not:
1) know this yet
or
2) know that he has them linked at all.
I just find myself wondering exactly what the storm will look like when this does hit the blogs of the people he seemed to consider allies (whether they knew of him before this or not. I know there are a few folks from that "camp" who do read us, or at least you, Ren.)
Trinity- Yep, I know they read a few of us...info on Kyle has also been posted at Belles, Jill B's, BnG, so on...the word is out.
And if they don't denounce this guy? Wow...
Oh, I just want to make it totally clear that I DO fully expect them to denounce him. (If they don't, that's creepy, yeah, but I see no reason why they wouldn't.)
I just mean that I think that there's a lesson to be learned here about getting too zealous about purifying the mind of "bad influence."
Basically, the idea people are already mentioning that some people who get so zealous for purification of the mind have something to hide. That they're the ones who have a dramatic history wrt FIGHTING! X, whatever X is [porn, a fetish, homosexual desires, whatever] so they get the most adamant that whatever that thing is is evil and anyone who indulges is fallen.
My point was that I don't think their "side" can agree with that, though, since he was taking what they consider to be the right stance on porn, so I wonder how they'll figure it. Maybe that he was just already so poisoned by porn that he was actually struggling valiantly, only to fall to the dark side?
I just mean that I think that there's a lesson to be learned here about getting too zealous about purifying the mind of "bad influence."
yep. sadly, though, the ones who most need to hear that are the ones who aren't going to...
oh, and I don't know how many of the UK set have him linked; I did see him linked at Allecto (who is writing for about the zillionth time about Joss Whedon, fuck knows what that's all about) and um a couple of other places. well, that Carnival, but I suppose they probably just accepted submissions for that.
and I expect that the answer is most likely a cynical "well, we SAID they were unicorns; disappointing that yet another one turned out to be like the rest of them, but not all that surprising. Disgusting about the hypocrisy, of course the pro-pornies are crowing with glee over it, etc. etc. etc."
because y'know for me at least it's my lurve of teh pr0nz that motivates me writing about this guy, as opposed to "ew ew EW what a scumbag, talk about don't do me no favors! with allies like this who needs enemas, p.s. throw the book at him," and so on.
I'm thinking more likely quiet delinking than full denunciation, but I could be surprised. It's true that this goes way beyond even the fuckwittery of twits like Rich.
i dunno belle, for as much "digging" as they were able to devote time to wrt to me and other folk, you'd think a male ally with a criminal record might, oh, be easy enough to find in google...
but yeah, this to me isn't so much about porn or whatever, it's about some asshole abuser pretending to be the saint and savior he clearly isn't. I mean, how many women did this fuck "help" as a rape crisis activist or whatever?
Eh. I do think at least some of them are better than quiet de-linking. I mean, well, wrt the Crippen thang: once she realized we're not nasty monsters, Debs was actually quite thoughtful and nice.
"but yeah, this to me isn't so much about porn or whatever, it's about some asshole abuser pretending to be the saint and savior he clearly isn't."
yeah, I dunno, Ren. I'm not sure if I see this as a jackass who put on an anti-"pornstitution" front, laughing all the way to the bank as it were, or if I see this as "well, the sort of dude who'd be attracted to something as black and white as Dines and Whisnant's analysis of male dominance would be the sort of dude who, well, really does have demons to excise about dominating women."
Could be either, really, IMO.
What the hell???
So fucked. I have no sympathy for this person.
It reminds me of the guy who raped me in college...he was the president of the "Greeks Against Sexual Assault" organization which was supposed to work with fraternities to raise awareness of rape culture.
Question for roykay - what do you mean by people "who want to self-identify as victims"? Who? I don't get it.
-penny
Ren-
Short-time lurker, first-time poster. I love your blog.
Thanks for shining a spotlight on this asshole.
I'm terribly sorry to hear about your injuries. I hope they heal soon and with a minimum of pain.
Suddenly my 4th-of-July sunburns don't seem too severe...
Oh the irony. Burglary seems a weird charge though.
A friend of mine was trying to explain to me the criteria for someone to be classed as a 'douchebag', I think she could have saved some time by simply pointing out Mr Payne.
I can't believe that he's still continuing with his blog as if nothing's happened. Has he no shame about his hypocrisy and vile behaviour?
Looks like he has a YouTube channel too. It makes me feel sick just looking at him.
Anyway, good luck with the healing Ren, I'm sure you'll be hale and hearty before you know it.
Holy wow, y'all, check this out.
http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/statement.php
From their mission statement:
" 1. Abolish all provisions of state and Federal sex offender registries that publicly shame offenders. There should be no internet or other public posting of the identity, photograph, address, workplace or personal information of any offender, nor should this information be available to the public at police stations or registry offices. In cases of genuinely violent sex crimes, especially against young children, and with a specific finding of a likelihood to re-offend, registration may be required, but information will be shared only among police officials, or if a court rules it appropriate, with institutions serving children or others who might be vulnerable to abuse. Strong penalties should be levied against police or others privy to the registration information who violate the privacy of the offenders.
2. Abolish all life-time civil commitment for sex offenders who have completed prison sentences and/or parole and probation. In cases of violent offenses and specific findings of a likelihood to re-offend, carefully constructed court hearings, with medical advice and full due process, should determine if the person may be further incarcerated, and then only for a short time and with regular review. The ultimate goal of all measures aimed at sex offenders should be their return to the community when they are not likely to re-offend.
3. Stop public vilification and demonization of sex offenders. Oppose the use in the media or by public officials of obviously pejorative language with regard to offenders. Label only actually violent acts as violent crimes - define violence simply and logically as a physical attack or threat that causes real harm. Use of the term "pedophile" should be extremely limited and accurate. Children should be defined as persons under the age of puberty.
4. De-criminalize all consensual sexual activities among teenagers. Stop all required sex offender registration for minors.
5. Abolish all laws that provide the death penalty or life in prison without parole for sex offenders.
6. Support broad sex education for children, and empower them to make their own decisions and stand up for their rights.
7. Provide accurate information and support valid research about sex offender characteristics and recidivism rates.
8. Help sex offenders re-enter society by abolishing measures which make it difficult for them to find a place to live and a decent job. Encourage support groups for sex offenders, including help with finding housing, employment, and effective treatment, before their release and afterward."
From their signatories list:
"Kyle Payne (feminist anti-porn activist)"
I'm not even going to attempt to analyze this here, because I've got a headache and work to do; I just noticed it and thought I would share. Have fun!
-- Aaron (aaron@acephalo.us)
Anon –
Oh, that's interesting. One could certainly make a humanist, hell, even a feminist case that draconian treatment of "sex offenders" doesn't actually do much to solve the underlying problem.
Then again, considering how Kylie had thrown his lot in with an extremely punitive fire-and-brimstone kind of feminism, his call for leniency in these cases does seem a tad self-serving.
trinity said:
"One thing I do notice is that Payne links to several of the people we've argued with (Maggie Hays, Laurelin) but I don't see anything yet on their blogs denouncing him."
belledame222 said:
"I'm thinking more likely quiet delinking than full denunciation, but I could be surprised. It's true that this goes way beyond even the fuckwittery of twits like Rich."
Hmm, Rich was actually the first person who sprung to mind when I was reading Trinity's comment above. Certainly makes the point about people who most loudly denounce X behavior – contrast his behavior of a few months ago with his always-strident denunciations of male egotism. To the best of my knowledge nobody in the radfem blogosphere had anything to say about it, either to call him on his hypocrisy or even to defend him. -- just pretend it never happened -- seems to be the course of action here.
Searching around for recent mentions of him, it looks like he's still in good standing with teh matriarchy:
http://www.womensspace.org/phpBB2/2008/07/07/the-pimp-and-ho-primary/
And of course, there's the old example of Evelyn Giobbe, one of the founding foremothers of radfem "abolitionism", who was sued for sexually assaulting a former prostitute who she was supposed to be helping. Victoria Marinelli had a rather massive falling out with the entire radfem milieu she was part of over her refusal to keep quiet about that one.
Jeeesus. Is it just me, or does anyone else get a Larry Craig/Ted Haggard feeling from this story? Except that breaking into someone's apartment to spy on them is, I'd say, significantly worse than trolling for sex in an airport bathroom, or sleeping with a sex worker of the same gender. The hypocrisy is of the same breed, though.
As I've said before: the fail abounds.
Aaron's comment supports what I said over at Belle's:
He's a sadist (in the non-consensual sense of that word) getting some vicarious thrill out of talking to and about victims of rape (and those he perceives as victims of rape).
Children are only those who haven't undergone puberty?!?
Label only actually violent acts as violent crimes? Ummm...what type of rape do they think is not a violent crime?
Interestingly, this he wrote this paper about a month before the sexual assault took place.
What's that they say about "Porn is the theory, rape is the practice"? Well, looks like a big fail here for the "practice" fostered by this bit of anti-porn theory.
iacb, anon: yeah, I had the same thought, and I saw that too. Also was wondering the date when he signed that particular missive. But yeah, that particular type of earnest male feminist is usually more "throw the book at them"...
and yeah, was also thinking about Evelina Giobbe and VM's denunciation of same, although I don't really know the details. but for sure I don't think women are exempt from this kind of--well, it's beyond Larry Craig-ism, but you know what I mean.
I mean, I've said that Sam skeeves me out in similar ways to noposchlomo and some of the male radfems.
This guy is extra creepy because at first he seemed somewhat more plausible than, say, Dim, or nopo: he doesn't appear to indulge in pornographic language even as he denounces it, he writes more articulately and clearly; he comes off as a smarmy creep, yes, but not y'know a total crank, assuming you have any sympathies toward that spectrum of politics.
You know, before I saw the charges, though, the post that actually creeped me out the most was the one where he was all, oh, people tell me I never get angry! but I do, I do! it's just that I express it through righteous tears! (example of porn lecture where he wept over the awfulness of it all) and I'm not ashamed! ooooo-kay. I mean, besides -weeping- over yer pr0n slideshow (no, not creepy because you're a dude and dudes don't cry, creepy because really, wtf?) no, actually, weeping with sorrow isn't the -same- as anger, and the fact that you're saying indirectly that actually you never -do- get angry is--everyone I've ever known like this is someone to run screaming from.
and yeah, that's true about Rich, and yeah, he's disgusting, and he's rarely called out. I mean, Maia called him out, but I dunno what her own standing is at this point.
otoh as far as I know he's never actually been convicted of -assault.-
which is not to say--no, I won't go down the potential libel/whatever path, I just don't trust him as far as I could throw him. Still, Kyle is in a sphere of his own at this point.
Anon--Some of the points on that list aren't too bad. I'm certainly for decriminalizing consensual sex between minors. (Though not for not requiring underage offenders to register.)
So if this had been the only 'weird thing' he did, it probably wouldn't've made him any less of a feminist. But looking at it along with his other actions, well--I wonder why he doesn't want sex offenders to be demonized?
Oh. My. Goodness.
This is the equivalent of Ted Bundy becoming a freakin' rape counselor and using his "access" to the women he raped and killed to justify his current profession.
Funny that the GenderBorg can accept Mr. Payne's word as authentic for ALL men who rape -- let alone, all men who use and consume porn -- but people like moi who happen to use porn for its intended purposes of pleasure and manage not to even denigrate women -- heaven forbid, abuse or rape them, are continuously tagged and smeared as virtual rapists and abusers.
But hey...a real rapist that can be used to sell their agenda?? No problem.
Hypocrisy, Ren?? No. Worse than that. This is justifying the very behavior that they would accuse innocent men of doing.
Nice company they keep.
Burglary is a good charge - burglary is breaking into a place with the intent to commit a crime therein (roughly) - even if that crime is assault. It isn't just about theft.
And what an asshat.
There's also this, which I found telling and creepy, over at his blog:
http://kylep ayne.wordpr ess.com/2008/06/18/relatio nships-part-ii-wed ding-bells/
"The words I shared with my ex-fiance, the person with whom I shared an engagement from the tender age of 17 up until two months shy of the Big Day when I bailed, and the person with whom I constantly defied accusations that we were “too young” and had “no clue” what we were doing, were something like, “Yeah, I just worry when people get married so young. They still have so much living to do. So much to learn.”
An ounce of critical thinking would very quickly throw that statement out as hypocritical. Getting engaged at 17, having planned to get married at 21, and I’m questioning my peers for doing exactly the same thing? Granted, in my case, plans changed, but that really doesn’t put me in any place to criticize. And for that matter, sharing this hypocritical opinion of mine with the former partner I abandoned was not exactly in the up and up either. Hopefully this post will help me clarify a few points."
So he is a jackass and does, fully, know it.
Woman he abandoned: You're so better off without this guy.
And this, too:
http://kylepa yne.wordpr ess.com/2008/01/06/relat ionships-part-i/
"A great deal of change took place. For one, there were four different relationships, each with its own unique characteristics. The first, a very mature-for-our-age, codependent, and occasionally abusive relationship. The abuse was not malicious or sexist, but really more the product of a boy and girl engaging the complicated and messy realities of intimacy without the necessary emotional and social skills (which is not to excuse it, but merely to provide context). The second relationship was not as meaningful, and during the rare times when I think about it, I feel like I’m watching a bizarre, short-lived sitcom (perhaps entitled “The Rebound”). While growing up, my partner had learned a great deal about patriarchy and its plan for her, and by the time we started dating, she was a card-carrying member of the sexist establishment, actually pleading with me to treat her in such a way that would have amounted to emotional and sexual abuse."
So, uh, you abused someone but that was OK, and someone asked you for BDSM (or something, I can't tell) but that wasn't?
Wow. GRADE A CREEPNESS HERE Y'ALL.
Trinity-
Yeah, we really do have the hat trick here, don't we?
-Judgemental and Rejoycing in it
-Assaulted a Woman while claiming to be an ally of Women
-Gloats about dumping/hurting a long time partner, yet feels he can give relationship advice.
Kyle, you are a fucking asshole.
The problem with the RadFems is that they haven't heard from their Chief Dialecticians - so they are kind of locked into immobility. Should they play it as?:
1) This is what happens to PEOPLE after exposure to porn.
2) This is what happens to MEN after exposure to porn.
3) He was a false RadFem and WE'RE THE REAL VICTIMS HERE!
4) He is a ToolOfThePatriarchy(TM) Infiltrator/Agents Provacateur
5) He was framed by a ToolOfThePatriarchy(TM) who planted those images on his computer.
Decisions? Decisions? How to spin? How to spin?
Okay, pisaquari wrote about it, that, I should've expected: she broke the Cuttin' Up Hookers fuckbag (whom I still want to follow up on)
UFPC: yeah, exactly.
Trin, yeah, I blinked at those same posts, too.
as per the fiance, there were some interesting comments on the Eleanor's Trousers site:
He was found to be in possession of a significant quantity of child pornography last year. He first played it off as being too zealous in his research into sexual exploitation, then switched to completely denying any knowledge of it.
In the process of looking through his files to track the history of him downloading the child porn, they found pictures of him engaging in sexual assault of a BVU student while she was either sleeping or passed out. He was touching and disrobing her while taking pictures of the whole thing. The arrest this week was partly the result of that investigation.
As far as the child porn, he isn’t yet off the hook for that. They’ve got him dead to rights, but they’re putting together a bulletproof case because he’s going to fight it with everything he has.
For those of you who think people are being quick to judge, take comfort in knowing that he had all of us snowed. His activism was a cover. I was rather close to him until all this went down. He started acting weird months before this started, including breaking off his engagement. He confided in his fiance about some of this stuff once the sh*t started to hit the fan, and eventually he distanced himself from her altogether.
tangentially, this was telling too, I thought:
I attended BVU with Kyle Payne. In fact I was in many of the same organizations he was in. It was easy to see that Kyle never truly showed his true nature. He always acted like he had something to hide.
There were very few people at BV who like Kyle. Even the administration seemed to get annoyed with him. In my opinion this is the reason BV didn’t try to hide what he did. They didn’t want him to bring down the school any more then what it already is and they didn’t care about him.
It is fact BV covers up anything that might hurt them. Last year they covered for the student body president who hit his girl friend in front of wittneses. When a prop tried to do something about it they banned her child from campus, they have refused to protect another woman by allowing her ex on campus even though there is a known protective order against him.
BV is sexist and it does not protect its female students. The problem not only lies with Kyle but also with Buena Vista University.
It is my guess that if Kyle had been more liked by the administration, and this had not gotten out so fast to the police;BV would of covered this up too.
there were a number of comments by various logins to this general effect.
Rape/non consensual sex is vile as it is but I don't know if drugging a woman and taking advantage is worse or the same, but it's sick.
I don't know what to make of male feminists. Some days I can deal with it, other days I find it creepy - especially when they act like they have a womb and 'feel' the same things women do as well. I wonder if they're open to being injected with estrogen on a monthly basis?
I guess in general I'm leery of anyone who is "selflessly" devoted to the cause of anyone else, including a mass effort that's supposed to represent their own interest group. Because usually ime what it means is that they're extrapolating from their own personal experience but -calling- it universal, thereby cheerfully jettisoning any need to actually -listen- to anyone whose existence/experience challenges their worldview and thus Plan To Save The World.
There's also ime a difference between someone like a male feminist or white anti-racist who -supports- other people, is an -actual- ally, and someone who spends so much time in the limelight that they actually edge the people on whose behalf they're supposedly speaking to the margins again. Unfortunately the latter often claims to be the former, earnestly castigating all those -other- Pretenders in the process, so...
there are times when one prefers your basic clueless, apolitical schmo, at least, yes. Sometimes all the theorizin' seems to get in the way of basic empathy and common sense. Not to be a total yahoo, I mean, I do think this shit is valuable on the whole, but...there's an awful lot of bullshit, too.
Meanwhile, though, back to Fuckhead, this bit really would send me into red alert, and oh by the way, he's quoting Jensen here, who hasn't been arrested for assault but skeeves the shite out of me, and this is just one more thing:
Bob Jensen made an important point to the group as our time together drew to a close: “Not everyone gets better.” This is certainly true of survivors of sexual violence, who are far too often met with frustration, even blame, from loved ones who simply cannot understand why they haven’t “put the pieces back together.” And I think it might be a fair statement regarding anyone doing anti-rape or anti-pornography work. It is the most heartbreaking experience for me as an advocate not to be able to tell a survivor that everything will be fine, that with the right amount of support and determination, she will be able to move on with her life, and in some sort of meaningful way, feel okay. The reality is that not everyone gets better, and whether we call it the “rape culture” or “porn culture,” we are living in a society that actively prevents healing from taking place.
Okay, never mind the "porn culture" crap for a moment, or what the Final Solution is supposed to be. Excuse the fuck out of me, but -who- appointed these dudes experts on which rape victims will and won't -get better?- That shit's fucking creepy even without the now revelation of,
"Gee, Kyle, maybe they don't get better because FUCKSTAINS LIKE YOU ABUSE THEM AND SHATTER THEIR TRUST ALL OVER AGAIN, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT!"
...yeah, if that woman turns out to be someone he's "counseled" on top of everything else...
the rage just suddenly increases fourfold. Do you have ANY IDEA how fucking -traumatic- it is for someone in the position of a -healer- to do that? Flaying's too good for him.
If Payne's past is known among his 'fellow' feminists, then I wouldn't be surprised if he was forgiven by many of them simply because he blamed that evil porn for his barbary. That's a Get Out of Jail Free card; pass Go and here's your wad of cash. Like roykay said, it's the whole, "the devil made me do it!" excuse. Tired. It's rather frightening that personal accountability can be so easily shrugged off.
"Excuse the fuck out of me, but -who- appointed these dudes experts on which rape victims will and won't -get better?- That shit's fucking creepy even without the now revelation of,"
Yeah, that was a big thing with my PTSD, too: Will I be one of the good ones who Gets Over This?
kristen: Children are only those who haven't undergone puberty?!?
Technically, many state laws of the US define anyone under 18 as an infant, even more helpless than a child, who most people see as those post-diaper stage. This can be related to having consensual sexual relationships between teenagers decriminalized, which is a good thing. But the wording in that petition needs to be seriously tightened up.
Label only actually violent acts as violent crimes? Ummm...what type of rape do they think is not a violent crime?
I know, right. But at the same time, it could also cover the aforementioned consenting relationships between teenagers, so that one or both do not end up registered as a violent offender for having sex with their consenting boyfriend/girlfriend who is their age or within a year or two. But once again, the wording is vague.
belledame:Excuse the fuck out of me, but -who- appointed these dudes experts on which rape victims will and won't -get better?
Self-appointed, of course! They as Sensitive Men (TM) are just trying to help us little ladies because otherwise we don't know any better! Run along and play with your dolly while the Sensitive Men (TM) handle it. Now that is patriarchal.
What do you expect, suckas?
You want REAL MEN giving their REAL TRUTH. Look at MRAs.
You want a bunch of weak, dickless, hypocritical pansies pandering to the poo-nanny state? See male femtards.
Feminist-approved BVU Man of the Year...LMFAO!
I have two theories as to exactly how someone can be such an incredible hypocrite in this case. People have mentioned them already in these comments, but I thought I'd give my take, anyways.
The first is guilt- he feels so horrible about what he's done/what he wants to do that his anti-porn feminist stance is a penance of sorts.
The second, and my guess is more likely (unfortunately) is that he finds talking about pornography/rape and, even worse, talking to sexual assault victims, arousing. Talking to survivors at their most vulnerable is sexual for him- he wouldn't be into the girlfriend who asked to engage in power play, of course- because that would involve negotiated consent.
He most likely used feminism as a front in order to get off, and, frankly, it's not just radical feminists who should be saddened and angered about that- it's all women who identify as feminists or used to.
And, of course, everyone with a heart should be saddened and angered any time an assault occurs.
PS - See Eliot Spitzer too.
Recognize the hypocritical profile here, ladies.
A real man isn't afraid to call a bitch out. A fake one does nothing but suck her ass.
I would be highly suspicious of any soapbox male feminist. Which is essentially the equivalent of a Black KKK member.
These guys are dishonest to the core.
byrd- the only bitch i see here is you :)
JAG: I'm thinking both/and, there.
-sends mental cloud of Vashta Nerada after byrdshit-
I've probably already spent way too much time psychoanalyzing this particular breed of sick fuck, but I have to say, I actually really *don't* get a Larry Craig/Vitter hypocrite vibe from this guy, or the "arguing most strongly against that which is most difficult for himself to control", externalization of personal struggle.
Because, honestly, I don't think this guy *struggles* at all. I think he is just. that. fucked. up. I agree with the commenters who have focussed on the probable arousal the guy gets from talking about sexual violence (and from being the knight in shining armour), and I think that's fundamentally different from a guy who really has internalized the belief that there's something *wrong* with being gay, who staunchly sets out to save the world from the overpowering scourge of gayness, but who can't quite overpower the actual source of that scourge (ie his own damn desires).
Aspasia,
IF (and I stress if) what their referring to is decriminalizing sex between "consenting" minors, then I agree, but the way it is phrased in the context of sexual assault generally it implies that they are trying to lower the age of consent under statutory rape laws and perhaps child pornography statutes.
Their "statement" seems to support that reading given the following quotes:
"Often, such public notification includes persons whose alleged crimes are labeled violent, but where no force or violence occurred. In some jurisdictions, public notification includes those accused of possessing a single photograph of a naked child, accused of public urination, or accused of "unwanted affection" involving persons under eighteen."
WTF?
Or how about:
"Focusing on "saving" children from sexual molestation by strangers distracts us from far more serious forms of violence against children and young people."
Ah yes, we can't feed the homeless in DC because of the starving people in Africa!!!
Kristen said:
"IF (and I stress if) what their referring to is decriminalizing sex between "consenting" minors, then I agree, but the way it is phrased in the context of sexual assault generally it implies that they are trying to lower the age of consent under statutory rape laws and perhaps child pornography statutes."
I don't have a problem with some of that in itself. In an American context, I'd definitely support lowering the age of consent to the norms of Europe and the rest of the developed world. More generally, understanding adolescence as a grey area between childhood and adulthood rather than simply late childhood. Why that's considered so far beyond the pale is beyond me; presenting that as an issue on which people can't have reasonable disagreement isn't helpful at all.
""Focusing on "saving" children from sexual molestation by strangers distracts us from far more serious forms of violence against children and young people."
Ah yes, we can't feed the homeless in DC because of the starving people in Africa!!!"
Well, I don't think you can dismiss that argument quite so easily, because the fact remains that most sexual violation and violence against children does not come from strangers with candy or "internet predators". Most of it happens within the family, or by people close to families. And generally its not those groups of people who are generally thought of as who children need saving from.
Have a look at last year's campaign by a few writers against "barely legal" porn as an example of how far concern over safety of "children" can get from things that are causing real problems to real children.
Oops. I missed this.
>Question for roykay - what do you mean by people "who want to self-identify as victims"? Who? I don't get it.
>-penny
I mean people who revise reality so that they can consider themselves victims. E.g. - Someone hod had second thoughts about sex after the fact, someone whe elects to feel raped when seeing porn, things like that.
iabc,
Re: Lowering the age of consent
See, I don't think we should lower the age of consent, which varies greatly by state (in my home state it's 14). Not that I don't think that minors have a right to explore their own sexuality, of course they do. But minors also have the right to do so without the interference of more sophisticated adults.
Minors do not necessarily have the same decision-making capacity as adults. This is the same rationale we use to void contracts between minors and send minors through the family court system instead of through the adult justice system.
I am wary of any organization that purports to lower the age of consent in the same breath as pedophilia, particularly when they give an incorrect definition of that word.
Re: Child abuse
My point remains the same. There is no scarcity in my ability to be outraged and concerned. I work with abused kids, who are often physically and sexual abused by a family member. I can be concerned about them and still be concerned with the 22 year old man who is attempting to date my 14 year old god-daughter.
Kristen –
First, AOC laws vary by state, but almost universally, in American law anyway, there's some provision against any kind of sex involving people under 18. If its it not covered by statutory rape laws, then there are broad "contributing to the delinquency laws" that are invoked. To the best of my knowledge, most other countries don't have such a blanket prohibition about any and all under-18 sex as the US does. Also, the US tries to push its laws as a legal standard that other countries should adopt, much the way it pushes prohibitionist laws on prostitution.
As for the rest of it, I guess I just don't agree. I actually find it very questionable that sex between teenagers is OK as "mutual exploration", but the moment it involves somebody over 18 (or some extremely narrow allowance of "within two years", or whatever) it becomes out and out abuse. That kind of "line in the sand" thinking really doesn't strike me as at all logical or reasonable. Generally speaking, left to themselves, teenagers will often actively seek out sex with partners in their 20s – I don't see this as "interference" and I really don't see any overwhelming reason for the State to intervene in this, especially in the draconian way that such situations are typically handled, which as a serious sexual offense on par with rape.
I also don't agree with holding sex to the same legal standards as contracts, for a number of reasons, since I think a very basic right of sexual autonomy is the freedom to choose one's sexual partners without interference from the State, and I think that this is a freedom that should come into effect some time during adolescence, which is the time when a person can be reasonably said to have developed an autonomous sexuality that should be respected.
Lastly, to conflate issues around adult/teenage sexuality with pedophilia is just really bad faith, in my opinion, and sheds more heat than light on the whole issue. Pedophilia by definition involves attraction to pre-pubescent children (rather than "children" as defined by some arbitrary legal standard). Pedophilia, if acted on, is by definition predatory – young children are not seeking these experiences out. Teenagers, who are closer to adults than children in terms of sexual development, are really a whole different ball of wax.
And while 14 is a bit young, I was having sex at that age with someone who was 25, and I can't for the life of me figure out what kind of "harm" I've incurred as a result. I don't think my experience is very atypical, either. Now if you want to argue that boys in that situation are different from girls, OK, maybe. I also can tell you that at that age I would have had plenty to say to any social worker or authority figure who thought it was their place to intervene in that situation for my own good, too. Even at my "older and wiser" age, I still don't agree with it very much, even though I realize such authority figures generally mean well.
"And while 14 is a bit young, I was having sex at that age with someone who was 25, and I can't for the life of me figure out what kind of "harm" I've incurred as a result. I don't think my experience is very atypical, either."
I've met men who say the same about similar experiences, IACB. I'm not entirely sure what I think -- I don't doubt anyone's self-report of his experiences, but I can also easily imagine similar experiences that *are* exploitative or harmful.
Personally, at 14 I wouldn't have been ready at all, and the person I was attracted to enough to start thinking about it at 15 turned out to be a douchebag who was into conquests.
So I'm inclined to think that even though part of me felt ready, I probably wasn't -- however sure I was of what I wanted, I hadn't yet figured out how to select a partner who really would care for me. (I'm still curious why exactly this person, who seemed to have no issues with abandoning his much younger paramours, refused to even get involved with ME, citing the idea that he'd hurt or disillusion me. I wonder why not doing this to ME struck him as important, but generally making people that age pregnant and leaving never seemed to bother him...)
But exactly what the government should have to do with it all I don't know. If he had consented and we had had sex, and he'd broken my heart... well, that wouldn't have made it rape, just douchebaggery.
"Generally speaking, left to themselves, teenagers will often actively seek out sex with partners in their 20s"
But, for all that I see your point IACB, I want to see a little more citation here. It sounds, as it stands, like you're citing one relationship *you* had for "often." Who are the others in the "often?" Do you have a study?
"I can't for the life of me figure out what kind of "harm" I've incurred as a result"
It's not harmful to men...or young women...but old cougars who then ge squeezed out of the action by their far younger and more nubile sexual competition.
That's why the only people who oppose lowering the AOC are old cougars. Not men or young women.
It's all about female sexual competition. Women know that left to natural devices, men would all prefer a fresh 14-yo clean virgin to a cranky old 41-yo with decades of emotional and physical baggage.
trinity said:
"But, for all that I see your point IACB, I want to see a little more citation here. It sounds, as it stands, like you're citing one relationship *you* had for "often." Who are the others in the "often?" Do you have a study?
No, I'll fully admit that's anecdotal. However, by "anecdotal", I definitely don't mean "based solely on my own experiences" but based on a lot of dating patterns I witnessed firsthand when I was in my teens and 20s, in addition to narratives I've read where people were discussing their teenage sexual experiences. These were relationships that were actively sought out by the younger partner, and some of these relationships were stable and long term. (The most extreme example of this is a married couple who are some of my best friends – a guy in his 50s and a woman in her 30s – when they first got together, he was in his 30s and she was 16. They've been together for close to 20 years now.) I can't put hard numbers on it, but I've seen and read about enough to put it in the category of "not uncommon".
Now if there's any hard data on teenagers partnership choices age-wise, I'd be interested in seeing that, but lacking that, I'm just going with what I know.
byrd- eww.
maybe some of us just find the idea of a 42 year old fucking a 14 year old, regardless of gender, rather creepy. Extreme age differences, on either end, with either sex, kind of personally freak me out. Not saying that's Universal, but when someone in their 40s, male or female, straight, gay, or bi, is into and screwing people who just have or do not have driver's licenses, I wonder why...I tend to think it's because the older person wants someone weaker than they are that they can control and manipulate.
what is it with virginity anyway?
iabc,
Re: AOC
I'm willing to agree to disagree on this one. My experience of being 14 was different from yours. At 14 I wasn't prepared to make decisions that would impact my health and well-being, potentially for the rest of my life.
Certainly, its a bright line rule...it has to be...we can't do MRIs on every person to determine whether they've developed sufficiently in their frontal lobe to make sure they are making rational decisions so we make generalizations and enforce them. Are there some 14 year olds who may be able to rationally choice a sexual relationship? You indicate that you were, and I believe you. But some 14 year olds cannot.
What rule would you choose? What age would you pick?
Re: Pedophilia
I agree about conflating...but I wasn't the one doing the conflating. They were. If you read their "Statement"...they talk about pedophilia in the same context that we're trying to ascribe to adolescent sex. That implies to me that they're talking about things other than adolescent sex.
Birdseye,
Yes, exactly! I'm afraid of sexual competition with my god-daughter. You've perfectly psychoanalyzed me! It couldn't possibly be that I'm worried that the same girl who started SCREAMING in Nordstrom that her mother was evil because she couldn't have a leather skirt that cost more than her mother makes in a week might not be rational enough to consider the risk of pregnancy or STDs.
he same girl who started SCREAMING in Nordstrom that her mother was evil because she couldn't have a leather skirt that cost more than her mother makes in a week
-wince- my sympathies.
goddamit. how is it that fucking byrdshit manages to hijack EVERY topic he slimes across?
yes, that was a rhetorical question.
Y'know, I really don't know, antip. I mean, it *can* be cool to know that you're the first one to do [some cool thing] with somebody, especially if they're really eager. I've found it really fun to be the first one to penetrate guys, for example. Often they're really curious and excited and I think that's a lot of fun.
But the whole fetishization to the degree where that's what people hope for or seek out -- no, that I don't get at all, really. Nor the idea of a much older person particularly going after very young people, like what Byrd's talking about.
Wow - thanks for sharing this one, Ren. Somehow this doesn't surprise me. It fits the pop psych theory that those strongly anti-whatever (sex, porn, queer rights movement, etc.), those who condemn something publicly, are those who have struggled the most with it.
In other words they can't handle it, they have a bass-ackwards, dysfunctional and often illegal relationship with it, so nobody else gets any either - "I'm an alcoholic/abuser so you can't have a drink."
Actually you're wrong about that. I am anti-porn and have never masturbated to porn or found enjoyment in it in any way. I just saw how degrading and violent it was. I have also have a healthy sex life and am extremely satisfied- in case you would assume I am a frigid bitch who's afraid of sex. I find your assumptions disgusting and I find this man disgusting . Just because he watched porn/made porn and advocated against it does not mean you can make generalizations about anti-porn people. I find it disturbing that in the light of something as horrible as this man's past you chose to generalize about an entire activist group. He is an anectdote, a horrible one at that, and there may be a few more like him, but that does not mean everyone who is anti-porn is a sicko hypocrite. Your comments were extremely offensive.
Thanks Belle,
I felt pretty badly for her mother myself. She just picked up her purse and walked to the car. Nothing like feeding, clothing, and loving someone so completely for fourteen years only to have them be entirely ungrateful. (I was the same way at that age of course, but I don't think I ever screamed in a department store...)
Kiah –
Like anti-porn people don't make some rather horrible assumptions about sex positives? Like your side hasn't said more than a few things that are entirely "offensive". Pot, kettle, black, baby.
As for "tarring an entire movement", I think you really need to read further. Read some of Ren's other posts before blovating on this.
What I do get from this and other incidents I've seen and read about concerning anti-porn types is 1) your movement does in fact have some skeletons in its closet, even if that's far from representative of the most of the people in your camp, and 2) those examples call into question the effectiveness of the anti-porn radical feminist project – basically, its a movement that's calling on everybody to make profound changes to their sexuality and a whole lot of other things, because supposedly this is necessary to solve the problems of sexual abuse and violence against women. Well, color many of us doubtful about that, and even more doubtful when its apparent that, for all this sacrifice and hairshirting, your house is not in order.
Oops. I missed this.
>Question for roykay - what do you mean by people "who want to self-identify as victims"? Who? I don't get it.
>-penny
I mean people who revise reality so that they can consider themselves victims. E.g. - Someone hod had second thoughts about sex after the fact, someone whe elects to feel raped when seeing porn, things like that.
To support what roykay said, Ren has a blog post about another blog making such claims: GUILTY!
"Like anti-porn people don't make some rather horrible assumptions about sex positives? Like your side hasn't said more than a few things that are entirely "offensive". Pot, kettle, black, baby."
Yeah, this. I accept that I have said generalizing things about anti-porn feminists based on this, and I apologize. But I'd like to see less generalizing from others, as well.
Kyle Payne is a total hypocrite. I really hope that the people who will be at his sentencing will confront him about his sexual assault of that woman.
I think what would be awesome would be to lock Kyle Payne into a room with Evelina Giobbe and throw away the key.
And that's as much as I'm gonna have to say about that.
"I think what would be awesome would be to lock Kyle Payne into a room with Evelina Giobbe and throw away the key."
Hooooooooo boy. Yeah. I wonder who'd win the bullshit dominance fight? My money's on Giobbe.
I was thinking, how about stumbling each and every single blog post that has a reference to that disgusting rapist Kyle Payne, It might help it to gain a wider internet audience? Any thoughts on this suggestion?
How does one "stumble?" /luddite
Kiah: yeah, I hear you.
To my mind, what sets the red flags off isn't so much "I am anti-porn" but the people--not just male, either--who manage to sound like the copy ad of a hardcore DVD of the sort Ren would be more familiar with, even while supposedly casting judgment on all that terrible stuff (and such small portions). (Hi, noposchlomo! Hi, Sam Berg! Hi!!)
this guy, well, he's gone beyond even that & is kind of in a realm of his own. -shudder-
belle - www.stumbleupon.com
Fake trackback
I am profoundly suspicious of the whole idea of "advocate. "Who does assuming that role empower? There are no advocates, there are no allies, there are no feminist males, there are no cookies. There is only doing what you think is right with people you respect and care about.
"Like anti-porn people don't make some rather horrible assumptions about sex positives? Like your side hasn't said more than a few things that are entirely "offensive". Pot, kettle, black, baby."
So anti-porn activists are your role models, then? You hold yourself up only exactly to the standard of their behavior, and no further? Intriguing.
Is there any way you can blacklist Kyle Payne from all womans activist groups and get togethers? I wouldn't want him to be involved in any clubs or organizations that deal with activism.
Kyle deliberately engaged in threatening non-consensual behaviour - invasion of a private space without consent, removal of clothing without consent, photographed without consent. The woman has clearly been sexually objectified in an threateningly invasive manner. I would not want to find myself in a similar situation and she has my sympathy.
What Kyle did was wrong and quite creepy. It certainly wouldn't endear him to me as a person. He's a kind of anti-role-model for the kind of person I feel that I ought to be.
I am however concerned at the articles attempt to close debate on this matter (eg. the title's claim "Kyle Payne: There is no debate here, this is wrong"). I agree that it's ethically very important to acknowledge what Kyle did was wrong but I think that arguing against debate is wrong because it simply gives a kind of carte blanch to polemic. There should be a debate but we need to find the right locus of the debate. I don't think the locus should be located around whether what Kyle Payne did was right or wrong but I do think a debate could be had about how wrong it was or how it relates to the rest of his life and work.
I'm not apologising for what Kyle actually did but I think there is a need for (1) perspective about how we understand what he actually did. (2) question the manner in which everything else he has ever done has been interpreted through this rather creepy episode.
Firstly, Kyle didn't violently rape this woman in the way so many other women have been violently raped. I'm not saying we should give him a gold star for not being worse but I argue that the severity of our condemnation should be in proportion to how we understand the awfulness of what he did. I don't think it's necessarily useful to polemically conflate many different kinds of problematic behaviours with the most violently awful kinds of rape. As feminists we oppose all these problematic behaviours but being objectified in the street is not the same as being raped at knifepoint and what Kyle did seems to be somewhere in between these two points.
Just to re-affirm a few points in case people misunderstand me: what Kyle did was wrong and he deserves criticism for it, the woman whose privacy and consent he violated deserves our support, Kyle didn't rape anyone at knife point here and shouldn't be treated as if he had just because as feminists we condemn both.
Secondly, I'm not sure we can just rewrite the entire history of this persons life and writing through the lens of this creepy episode. If we're to criticise Kyle for what he did then that implies that we believe he did it deliberately (as against viewing it as some kind of improbable accident) but to condemn everything he ever did on the basis of this action implies that this creepy act was the only deliberate thing he ever did in his whole life and the rest was a kind of elaborate charade.
I don't really buy the psychoanalytic reading that has been offered where Kyle is understood to be working as a feminist in bad faith. It's certainly embarassing for Kyle to have done this creepy thing and to work against patriarchy but I think that in some sense he can do both. It looks like a logical contradiction but I think people can act differently at different times (the asshole in your office might be the biggest sweetheart to his children) or even, dare I say it, change.
I don't think that finding out that someone has done something wrong means that they are evil to the bone and that we should reconsider everything else they have ever done looking for further evidence of the evil essence that has supposedly been uncovered. I believe that there are relatively few true sociopaths that could be considered “evil” (that overly religious term). If you're going to burn everyone at the stake that ever does anything wrong then that's something I can't relate to. I'm an atheist but religious terms - like forgiveness, atonement, and charity - still spring to mind.
It's not that what someone does doesn't matter. What Kyle did is now firmly part of the public history of Kyle and that is a kind of punishment in itself that should not be sneezed at.
I know that a lot of feminists are up for locking up everyone that has ever raped and throwing away the key but that's just the easy way out - a way of abdicating our responsibility to them as people (though perhaps necessary when a true sociopath exhibits an ongoing threat to other people). It's a lot harder to think about learning to live with these people in spite of what they did rather than to think about shooting them. It's easy to have a will to power over people that currently have power over us...but power is not the solution, it's the problem. So my question is this: if you're not going to kill them or lock them up then how are you going to co-exist with them?
[By the way, if I disagree with Kyle's anti-porn stance or have problems with how he went about articulating it then I won't just lump it in with my criticism of his creepy behaviour. I don't think that I should take advantage of a populist denunciation to score my own political points by implying that my disagreement with them is based in the fact that a creep said it.]
I almost wish I didn't click on one of those links - he looks TOO similar to one of the fuckers who raped me.
What a fucking cunt.
This is an important post, I am really grateful for it. I am a man, and my sexual life was absolutely wrecked by anti-porn feminism. When I was an anti-porn male feminist, I never got laid and was ashamed of my sexuality, because of course I was entirely addicted to porn at the same time. And of course, being ashamed of my sexuality, I never ventured to approach a girl, seeing myself as a weirdo pervert porn addict, not worthy of those sublime creatures called Women.
Idealizing women, of course I was disappointed with real women and tended to hate them, because they didn't live up to feminist ideals. I guess I was not far from becoming a Kyle Payne kind of rapist myself.
Fortunately, I had the privilege to meet women like you, who had a realist and understanding approach towards male sexuality, even male fondness of pornography. Thanks to these women I learnt to accept my own sexuality. Now it could never occur to me to rape anyone, because I have learnt about real women and forgotten about pernicious anti-porn feminist views of women. In fact, I think Kyle Payne-style anti-porn ostentatiousness is probably indicative of the man being not in harmony with his own sexuality and thus dangerous.
But hey, there is hope for Kyle. He should just be forced to watch pornography in the company of some nice pro-porn and pro-orgy bisexual girls. That would sure cure him. ;)
Basically, I don't think the Kyle Payne kind of men are cynical hypocrites. I find it more probably that they are screwed up by anti-porn feminism and need treatment and de-programming.
Sorry for my imperfect English. It is not my native tongue, and I don't live anywhere near any Anglophone country. I hope you got my drift, though.
"there are times when one prefers your basic clueless, apolitical schmo, at least, yes. Sometimes all the theorizin' seems to get in the way of basic empathy and common sense."
Yup. If I could visit my younger self, I would tell him: quit trying to love all the women, find one who you genuinely care about, and make her happy.
Post a Comment