Some Balance and a Couple Links

I wanted to provide a quick balance to what I wrote yesterday.  Only fair right?  My time is limited so this post will be shorter. I’ve got to go swoop some fly girls tonight.  Ok I’m lying.  I’m just tired. 

Here are a few excesses I sometimes see from advocates of Game.  Feel free to add any others.  This wasn’t my most thought out piece of work. My past writing speaks to my affinity for the principles and many advocates for Game. Like my thoughts on MRA, this is only directed at a subset.

 

At times, Game advocates youth and life experience betray them.  This is clear in some of their assumptions and lack of imagination. 

This lack of imagination causes some of them to have little perspective on the lives of men who aren’t young, unmarried, secular, and in a blue coastal city.  (This is one of the  reasons why I hype Dave in Hawaii so much.)

Some brazenly view bitterness in all cases as weakness and a character flaw.  This speaks to a lack of life experience.  In my view, some bitterness is justified and in many cases can trigger healthy and reasonable responses.  Game reduces the chances of horrible outcomes with women but doesn’t come close to eliminating it.

Some Game advocates suffer from “one size fits all” syndrome. This can lead to simple minded and unrealistic advice.

Virginity isn’t the bedrock of Western Civilization but neither is rampant promiscuity.  I say this not to lecture but as a call for a bit of humility.

I’ll Game, while Rome burns, is a reasonable mindset given the times we live in, but it sometimes leads to dismissive attitudes towards MRAs in general.  

Some “keyboard gamers” talk a good Game (heh), but I suspect fall short in the real world. 

A few have dismissive attitudes about religion and are unable to understand the benefits, drawbacks, and difficulties a church going life provides with regard to the mating dance.  Example: What about men who are religious but also view marriage as an unwise choice given our legal and cultural climate?  What are they to do? 

 

Let me end with a word on Roosh and Pro Male/Anti Feminist.  Whatever you think of their lifestyle choices, both are outspoken and brave enough to express their views. Accepting the scrutiny that comes with it isn’t always easy.  It may not seem like much to hardened bloggers, but I believe it is meaningful.  Both my MRA and Game criticisms weren’t directly aimed at either of them either.  They just provided the spark for more general observations.

 

Here are a couple off topic links…

Did Bill Ayers admit to writing Dreams From My Father?  HT: Ace of Spades

Barack Obama: Alpha or Beta?  HT: Lurker from Roissy’s

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under alpha, beta male, female nature, game, Mens Issues, obama, politics

Game and MRAs

I wanted to comment on a kerfuffle( yes I used that word) that occurred between proponents of Game and a few MRAs over at Ferdinand’s blog a couple days ago.

If you read here, you know I am both a proponent of Game and consider myself an MRA.  Or, more accurately, an advocate for mens rights.  I’m not sure if writing, conversing, and thinking about mens issues make me an “activist”.  I’m not really a “take to the streets” kind of guy.  Hawaiian Libertarian makes a reasonable distinction here.

I see four main reasons why certain MRAs have a problem with Game and its advocates. 

1. They don’t understand Game.

2. They view women who require “gaming” to be unworthy of a mans attention. 

3. Religious men think it’s immoral. 

4.They resent anything short of complete shunning of worthless, entitled, “Ameriskanks” and think of men who don’t share this view as enablers.

For the purposes of this post I will leave aside #1, 2, and 3. They all tie in with each other. I’ve talked about them before and so have many others.  I’ll just say that Game isn’t only beneficial to young single guys who wear funny hats and nail polish, trolling nightclubs looking to hook up with “whores” (as opposed to madonna’s who just want “good men”).

Here are my thoughts on #4…

First let me say that if an individual man wants to shun relations with women completely, forgo sex, marriage, and children, fine by me.  I don’t have a problem with that.  I’m not here to tell anyone how to live their life. 

I will say that for the vast majority of men, this option is a non starter.  Be they young or old, religious or secular, rich or poor; men want women for sex, children, and companionship.  Complete avoidance of women might be an option for a select few, but can never be sold as an attractive lifestyle choice to most men. 

In addition, not all women are Ameriskanks.  Men can debate the numbers, but who can argue this?  Whether you want to say that 95% of women are decent, or 5%, some women are relationship worthy. ( Our legal system makes extreme caution necessary of course.)

So I ask, short of a lifetime of celibacy, what is the best way for an individual man to deal with women in the year 2009?  Without an answer to this question I will continue to think that these MRAs are unrealistic, dogmatic, out of touch and perhaps, too personally invested.

I think some MRAs opposed to Game resent it because they feel it is more male capitulation.  Women are once again benefiting from men bending over backward to appeal to the special little princess. While it’s true that women are more attracted to men who successfully run Game (intentionally or not), it is men who are benefiting much more in the long run.

Game at the margins, levels the playing field( and what an unlevel playing field it is!) and gives a man more leverage. More leverage means more options.  More options means putting up with less of her shit.  The time and effort put in to “catering” to her gina tingle is well worth it when you consider the alternative. Sucessfully pushing her attraction buttons may mean the difference between a long marriage and a divorce. Not feeling like a lickspittle, pushover, chump, herb/mangina is also an added benefit. 

Another objection seems to be aimed at alpha men.  Maybe a little bit of resentment at all the sex they are lavished with, or again,  that women are getting what they want by having sex with the men they desire.  Game is the wrong target though.  Alpha men, of which there are plenty of naturals, would be scoring in great numbers anyway.  Game may make an alpha a super duper unstoppable alpha, but it is most beneficial for guys a bit farther down the totem pole.

It seems that some MRAs think female hypergamy and an assortment of others behaviors are unique to contemporary, feminist influenced, American women.  It only seems that way because in times past a womans natural animal desires were constrained by cultural norms and the law. Game is a tool that helps a man personally constrain female behavior.  It ain’t a panacea, and its effectiveness is limited by human ability, but its better than nothing.

If men accept female nature for what it is then they will be less likely to wage a futile and unproductive war against it.  Women have always been this way and always will be. Nothing new under the sun.  It would be nice if MRAs don’t start resembling some feminists and their “all men are rapists” ideology.  As much as I rail against unconstrained female nature, I would also hate to live in a world where male nature is unchecked. That said, I still resent being viewed as a rapist and a predator.

Ive said it before and I’ll say it again, MRAs are good at pointing out inequities in the law and destructive behaviors women engage in.  Game advocates are good at pointing out why women are doing it, and on a micro level, the best way to respond. 

Both are necessary and have their place.  Female nature isn’t going to change.  The only way to curb its excesses is legal and cultural change.  Incentives are everything.  I’m not optimistic in the short term of this happening, but I do know shunning women altogether is fanciful and counter productive.

Finally, the tenets of Game can work on platonic relationships with women as well.  I may sound like a sycophantic supporter of Game when I say this, but I believe a priest can benefit from it.  Got to pass those nun’s shit tests after all.  I bet their shaming language is strong.  Think Meryl Streep in the movie Doubt.  I’m exaggerating a bit to make a point.  For a more real world example think: co-workers.  So yes, I believe even celibate men can benefit from Game.

 

I don’t see how it is productive for MRAs, who mainly focus on macro issues, to shun proponents of Game.  They aren’t mutually exclusive.  Men that use the tool of Game on a micro level can be just as supportive of the need for legal and cultural change as the guy going the celibate route.

Litmus tests don’t work for tiny outnumbered “movements” either.  It seems to me a big tent is in order if any progress is to be made.  If MRAs want to be taken seriously on the micro level, they need to offer more than isolation and celibacy as a mitigation.

I’ve made the distinction between Game and MGTOW( the micro to MRAs macro) before, and after thinking about it, dont think this is quite right.  Game is afterall, a tool.  MGTOW is more an attitude or way of life.  A man going his own way can use Game is my point. ( I believe most MRAs agree with me.)

I’ll end by pointing out that my critique was, I believe, shaming language free.  I didn’t call certain MRAs virgins, bitter, or terrible with women.  I’m sure some are.  I also believe that men more experienced with women have a much better understanding of their nature as well.  

In many cases, I believe it to be an unfair charge though.  A 40-year-old guy who did alright with women in his 20s, got married at 30, and got ass raped in divorce court at 40 is a common scenario.  An inept bitter virgin would be an inaccurate discription in this case.  MRAs also come in all ages.  A 60-year-old guy deciding to go celibate is a bit different from a 25-year-old.  Calling the former bitter and horrible with women is silly. Some men don’t have the desire, temperament, or ability to use Game very effectively.  I don’t feel the need to take them to task for it as long as they are as understanding to those who choose to go the Game route.

I welcome any criticism from MRAs that disagree as well.  Just leave out the “you are all fools and a hinderance to mens rights” please.

Four clarifications…

1.This isn’t a criticism of all, or even most MRAs.  After all, I would be criticizing myself if I felt otherwise.  Most seem to get it.

2. I don’t believe Game is the end all, be all, quick fix to everything ailing America.

3.MRAs are free to continue to dislike Game( I won’t hold it against them in other words), but I hope they reconsider their desire to excommunicate those who feel differently.  Again, big tent.

4. Criticism of how the tool of Game is used by individual men is valid and would make for an interesting discussion.

A question for MRAs critical of Game…

Out of curiosity, do you have more contempt for “players” like Roissy or Roosh, or for herb/mangina/swpl/leftist types?

I submit that the former is doing nothing to oppose (and in most cases supports in one degree or another) needed legal change, while the latter works to undermine it.

One last thing…

Talk on the danger of rape allegations ramping up as a result of Game being used with better skill and in higher numbers was discussed in Ferdinand’s thread as well. 

 A few quick thoughts…

Game shouldn’t replace a man having common sense and good judgement.

This might be a reason to stick to “10 Commandments Game” heh.

Is a woman more likely to wake up and regret sex the next morning with an alpha appearing “Gamer” or a nice guy beta? ( I realize this is just one possible false rape scenario.)

Not a rhetorical question. I could see arguments for both actually.  The “alpha” is going to be put in that position a lot more than the beta so his odds of being accused are higher, but the beta is more likely to trigger feelings of “ickyness” than the alpha.  If the beta suddenly seems insensitive to her needs, watch out.  A woman feels that a beta owes her a lot more for sex, especially the regrettable kind( and will resent the beta), than an alpha.  See: Max, Tucker.

This is the one time I would encourage a man to go the lickspittle, fawning beta route. If you were sexing while beta it is in your best interest to do so.  At least for a couple days or so.  More on this another time.

30 Comments

Filed under alpha, american decline, american women, beta male, female nature, feminism, game, Mens Issues

Classic Links and Congrats

Female Misogynist writes about colleges and the decline of character from March of 2008

Elusive Wapiti warns of a potential side effect to MRA from March of 2009

A post on the female marriage strike at Rebuking Feminism from January 2009

Roosh talks about ratings and nationalities from June 2008

Fidelbogen has a message for his feminist readers from January 2007

 

Finally, I wanted to congratulate the Colorado Rockies for making the playoffs by clinching a wild card birth last week. 

If you like baseball, and don’t have a team in the playoffs this year, may I suggest the Rockies for all of your rooting needs.  I’ve followed MLB since 1985 and have never seen a team with a more likeable group of players. 

I can’t pick out a single guy that I have negative feelings for. They all seem to work hard, know their role, and enjoy playing with one and other.  The team really has a throwback feel to it.  No druggies, punks, criminals, or thugs to be found. 

And if diversity is important to you; the Rockies fit that bill as well.  Veterans, rookies and everything in between, black, white and brown, single guys, and married with kids, American and foreign born.

I talk a little bit about the same subject here, after I went to a baseball game.

Now it’s time for me to go watch that other team in Denver take on the Dallas Cowboys.  The 1st real test the Broncos face this year.

5 Comments

Filed under classic links, Mens Issues

Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude: satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else’s misfortune.

The story…

U.S. President Barack Obama’s politically risky Olympics gamble failed to bring home the gold on Friday, with the Olympics committee’s refusal to grant the 2016 Summer Games to his hometown Chicago.

 

The story…

Chicago was knocked out in the first round — in one of the most shocking defeats ever handed down by the International Olympic Committee. President Barack Obama’s last-minute hop to Denmark didn’t swing the games Chicago’s way. He came, saw, charmed but did not conquer.

 The story…

And even as the president and First Lady Michelle Obama were leaving Copenhagen this morning following their appeal to the International Olympic Committee, the Republican National Committee was circulating an email complaining of the White House’s “wrong priorities” (see that below the fold.) The RNC chairman today, chiding the president for “verbal gymnastics” in Copenhagen, noted the newest numbers on rising unemployment back home (see below as well.)

Rahm Emanuel, the Chicagoan who is chief of staff for Obama, has an answer: “You know, we’ll make sure they get some good seats once Chicago does host the games.”

 

The story…

With First Lady Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey now in Copenhagen, CBS anchor Katie Couric on Wednesday night declared “the ‘Dream Team’ pushing Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympic summer games is nearly complete” and is now just awaiting “the team captain” — that would be President Barack Obama,who “arrives Friday ahead of the final vote.”

 

The story…

Civil rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson, who has long been based in Chicago, said he was surprised by the city’s loss.

“I’m shocked and saddened. We were emotionally prepared for it,” he said, noting that the United States had sent its “A team” of President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle to push for the Chicago bid.

 

The story…

And I’m not asking just as the First Lady of the United States, who is eager to welcome the world to our shores.  And not just as a Chicagoan, who is proud and excited to show the world what my city can do.  Not just as a mother raising two beautiful young women to embrace athleticism and pursue their full potential.

I’m also asking as a daughter.

See, my dad would have been so proud to witness these Games in Chicago. And I know they would have meant something much more to him, too.

You see, in my dad’s early thirties, he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. And as he got sicker, it became harder for him to walk, let alone play his favorite sports.  But my dad was determined that sports continue to be a vital lifeline — not just to the rest of the world, but to me and my brother.

And even as we watched my dad struggle to hold himself up on crutches, he never stopped playing with us.  And he refused to let us take our abilities for granted. He believed that his little girl should be taught no less than his son. 

 The story…

David Letterman told the audience of his late night talk show that he had sexual relationships with female members of his staff, adding that he’d forked over a bogus $2 million check as part of an extortion plot on the matter.

 

My in depth commentary and analysis…

 

Apparently, according to some, I am “anti-American” and “unpatriotic” because I wasn’t praying for/to Dear Leader to bring home the Olympics for the City of Chicago.

Honestly, I couldn’t care less about the Olympics.  Scatch beneath the kumbaya, “we are the world” bullshit, and you will find an event run by crooks, filled with one dimensional athletes who cheat, and autocrats who use it as an opportunity to grandstand and propagandize.

I haven’t watched more than 10 minutes of Olympic coverage since 1992.  The Dream Team sucked me in and I enjoyed watching them blow out other countries by 50 points a game.  (Ugly Americans at its finest. Thank you Charles Barkley.) I remember watching Mary Lou Retton as a little kid at the 1984 games as well. 

The tape delays, self indulgent commentary, “heart rending” biographies, and silly facade of the noble amateur athlete don’t do much for me. Call me a curmudgeon, but I’d feel the same way if Ronald Reagan were president and Denver had a chance at the games. 

The fact that all of Obama’s cronies( like Valerie Jarrett), won’t be able to personally profit, doesn’t make me shed a tear either. This is typical of the Olympics. Cities pile up a mountain of debt that only benefits a select few. As it turns out, half the City of Chicago understands this.

I have to say, I am surprised that Obama, schooled in Alinsky/Chicago politics wasn’t able to pull this off. Looks like the crooks in the IOC could see Obama working from a mile away.  Takes one to know one I guess.

Perhaps Obama should have taken a lesson from Chris Darden of O.J. Simpson fame.  You remember him?  He is the dopey prosecutor who made O.J. try on the bloody glove.  “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  Never commit yourself, at least openly, if you don’t know the outcome.

It isn’t only Obama’s failure that has me filled with joy today, but the reaction of  his worshiping sycophants in the media.  They are working overtime to try and spin his blunder. 

Obama is a one trick pony.  For two years that trick has worked wonders.  Hope and change rhetoric delivered in ubiquitous speeches aided by a teleprompter.  All campaign mode, all the time.  Seeing it fail is satisfying. 

The Obama Administration, along with its lapdog media ,can spin ( and will continue to do so) the economy, Afghanistan, cash for clunkers, healthcare, and all the rest.  The day of reckoning never comes, well, at least until the next election. 

This is different.  Obama clearly stated his goal.  He went about achieving it by giving a campaign style “touchy feely” teleprompter speech. Like always, he tried to use the force of his personality to get the job done.  And. He. Failed. Miserably.  In a matter of days.  With the entire world watching.  Tough to spin that.

I present a video (Hat tip: Ace of Spades)

One more question…

Did the entitled, affirmative action attitude, so exemplified by our dear 1st lady, help or hurt the vital cause of bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 7 years?

7 Comments

Filed under media, obama, politics

The Post Presidency of George W. Bush

Former President George W. Bush has been rather quiet since he left office over eight months ago.  A speech in Canada and a few trips to sporting events have been the extent of his public activity. 

Last week for example, he showed up at the Dallas Cowboys new stadium and was seen on television chatting with NFL icon John Madden.  He appeared rejuvenated and enjoying life after an embattled and hard fought presidency.

He has kept with tradition and refrained from criticizing his successor.  This is unsurprising, and in keeping with both his respect for tradition and family pedigree.  Dick Cheney has been entrusted to fight for Bush Administration policies along with protecting and promoting it’s legacy.

Something doesn’t seem quite right though.  His post presidency is a bit too quiet.  I have personal memories of newly liberated former presidents( not to mention living through 5 partial, or complete post presidencies) and I’ve never seen anything like it. This isn’t my first rodeo.

In fairness, there has been a move to a new crib in Dallas, talk of a forthcoming autobiography, and apparently, a presidential library in the works.  However, I still think Bush’s level of inactivity and lack of public appearances seem unusual.

A couple days ago my feelings were confirmed.  It turns out George W. Bush didn’t move to Dallas at all.  In fact, he’s in Denver, and you will never believe what he is doing here.  I’ll let the picture speak for itself.

Doing A Job Americans Won't Do

Doing A Job Americans Won't Do

A bus mechanic!  I’m shocked.  Apparently his tumultuous presidency drove him to seek a fresh start.  A more secluded and simple life is probably attractive after years of dealing with attack dogs in the media. Does this explain it though?

Is it a coincidence that a major player in a terrorist plot was recently apprehended here in the Denver?  Maybe he couldn’t get all that “War on Terror” stuff out of his system and decided to take matters into his own hands.  Whatever it is, I’m going to get to the bottom of it.

This is breaking news and I would appreciate a link (or at least a hat tip) if you decide to write about this.  I just talked to Matt Drudge and he is warming up his siren as we speak.  In my humble opinion, this is the biggest story broken by a blogger since the Dan Rather scandal in 2004.  If you don’t see new posts it probably means I’m off doing T.V. and radio interviews. 

 

Note: My picture doesn’t do the advertisement justice.  His resemblance to W. is striking at a certain distance.

Leave a comment

Filed under humor, islam, media, politics, terrorism

Notable Quotables

Elizabeth Braddock: “Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.”

Winston Churchill: “Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.”

5 Comments

Filed under alpha, humor, notable quotables

Thoughts on Polanski

I wasn’t going to comment on the Roman Polanski Saga, because frankly, it doesn’t interest me much.  I lost the ability to be shocked or outraged by such events long ago.  I’m either jaded, or like the lefties like to say, not paying attention.  I’m leaning toward the former.

Anyway, Alias Clio made a comment over at Roissy’s that peaked my interest a little bit so I figured I would respond to that.

Hey Roissy, I’m suffering from insomnia so I have a question for you: Roman Polanski – was it rape? Does he deserve to be prosecuted?

Prior to the last week, I didn’t know much about this case. All I knew was that Polanski was living in exile in France because he fled the U.S. after being charged with raping a 13-year-old.  Although I haven’t exactly immersed myself in every detail of this sordid affair; I feel comfortable answering in the affirmative to both of Clio’s questions.  Yes, I know I’m not Roissy.

You’ve defended Monica Lewinski, sort of, who was over 18 and not (quite) pitched at Clinton by her parents, as Polanski’s victim was. So will you defend her?

‘I’m not exactly sure what she is getting at but I’ll just say that there is a world of difference between a 13-year-old girl and a 22-year-old woman.  Not sure why Roissy or anyone else would not defend a 13-year-old girl as long as her story is credible.  I haven’t seen Gannon over there in a long time. Heh.

I’m curious, because although there’s some “he said, she said” in this story, I find this victim credible. And Polanski did plead guilty, or so I understand. An alpha male? Or a sociopath? Please don’t tell us that the two are exactly the same.

I find the victim in this case, from the stuff I have read, to be credible as well. 

An alpha male?  Probably. A sociopath? Perhaps. In my humble opinion, the two are not  the same, but they aren’t mutually exclusive either.  It is possible to be both.  I think most sociopaths would tend to either be alpha or omega.  Outliers at either end of the spectrum.  Ted Bundy or Scott Peterson the alpha.  Jeffery Dahlmer or John Wayne Gacy the omega.

The act itself was not alpha though.  Self control is an alpha characteristic no? 

She goes on…

JB, it still looks like rape to me, except that if Polanski weren’t famous no one would have heard about it. In fact, if he weren’t famous it might not have happened at all, because the child’s mother would not have left her alone with any old middle-aged man who had promised to get her picture into Vogue. I don’t think that the mother’s actions were intended to end in the rape of her daughter; she was both naive and ambitious, but not evil. But I don’t believe for one moment that the girl consented.

I won’t speak to this particular mother since I don’t know anything about her, but I don’t doubt there are plenty of parents who are willing to recklessly endanger their child’s well being for a shot at fame and fortune.  I’ll go farther.  Plenty would encourage their young daughters to sleep with powerful men if they thought it would help them break into the cutthroat world of modeling or acting.

Some evidence…

 

There’s some ground for suggesting that Polanski thought the girl had consented, though, or that her mother’s consent had secured her own.

I haven’t seen anything credible in my limited study of this case to suggest consent.  Is her age in doubt?  Is the drugs or alcohol she was given in dispute? I don’t believe a mother can grant consent for a girl that young either. If I am missing something I would like to know though.

And I can recall a debate about rape both here and at my own website, in which various commentators suggested that any time there was any doubt at all regarding consent, the alleged perpetrator should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Not sure if she means in a court of law or opinion.  If she means the former I think that rape trials should be held to the same evidentiary standard as any other legal proceeding.  Beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. 

This is hardly a typical “date rape” case in any event.  If a prosecutors only evidence is the female’s word, the male probably shouldn’t be charged.

I take each case one at a time.  In this instance I believe the girl and her mother.  From what I know, I believe Polanski raped her beyond a reasonable doubt.  The fact that the girl was 13 makes it much easier.

Of course, this girl was, at 13, under the age of consent to begin with – a complicating factor in the case and certainly one that guaranteed Mr Polanski’s being found guilty. But many men who post here don’t seem to think much of age of consent laws, either.

I can only speak for myself but I believe in them. Within reason of course.  I don’t want 20-year-old boys going to prison for having sex with 16-year-old girls for example.  I know I am taking a courageous position when I say that I don’t think it should be legal for 44-year-old men to have sex with 13 year olds. A bold stand indeed. 

That’s why I’m asking the question. I’m not in any doubt that it was rape. I don’t think the girl or her mother stood to gain anything by making a false accusation of rape, as the case was tried in 1978, a time when feminist legal theory and anti-rape fury had not reached the high level of influence they would in the 1980s.

Greed was still operable in the 70s though.

 If the child had wanted to appear in Vogue at any price, both mother and daughter would have done better to remain silent about the rape.

Her last point is a good one.  It gives the girl and her mother more credibility.  At the very least they could have taken a payoff and went away quietly.  The fact that they didn’t is telling.

Thank you Clio for providing me with something to post today.  You raised some good questions and concerns.

 

One last thing though.  The victim no longer wants Polanski prosecuted.  Here are some words from her I found on Wikipedia:

In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, “Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us.” Furthermore, “I’m sure if he could go back, he wouldn’t do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.” In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, “I think he’s sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don’t think he’s a danger to society. I don’t think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It’s an unpleasant memory … (but) I can live with it.”

I have a question.  Do you think she would be so forgiving if it were a lowly “Average Joe” who had raped her as opposed to a famous director?

Oh, and I did like The Pianist.

 

A few links…

ABC News story on the case

An excerpt from the victim in grand jury testimony ( graphic in nature)

A feminist( Anne Orangebum) gets into a huff when called on her bullshit

A member of Charlie Manson’s harem, who killed Polanski’s wife Sharon Tate in 1969, died a few days ago

 

A couple off topic links…

A former aide to Bill Clinton is claiming the ex pres got a bit too friendly with her.  I believed her up until she said she got “uncomfortable.”  HT: Jammie Wearing Fool

I found a picture of these ugly left wing piglets protesting against private health insurance.  Of course my goal in life is to subsidize these two slobs early onset diabetes so they can sit around surfing Jezebel and Feministing all day.

Update: Ace, over at Ace of Spades correctly labels Andrew Young ( John Edwards buttboy/former aide) at the bottom of the post.

4 Comments

Filed under alpha, american decline, american women, beta male, female nature, feminism, media, Mens Issues