I’m one of those Western Cumsluts.

Something called #HowtoSpotAFeminist happened on Twitter recently. Okay. Dave Futrelle gives us the edited highlights. Mostly it’s boring. They froth on and on about how we feminazis are ugly, fat and smelly. Yawn. And then it gets to the anti-Semitism. That’s…special.

Here’s the thing, folks: you can try and lecture us about “real feminism.” And we’ll probably point and laugh. OR you can call us “Western cumsluts.” Or anything involving “cum” or “slut.” And we’ll likely point and laugh.

But there is no universe in which you can be taken seriously while saying both of those things in the same breath.

Angry feminazis love telling people to go fuck themselves. It's the only sex act we don't define as rape.

Angry feminazis love telling people to go fuck themselves. It’s the only sex act we don’t define as rape.

They still want us to cross the street.

PZ Myers picked up this…humorous…new meme, but I refuse to put another copy of the unaltered image into Google, so I’ve done my part with it:

Original meme shows compact car hitting female pedestrian on roadway. Text was: "FEMINIST LOGIC" "Don't tell me when to cross the street. Teach drivers not to hit people."  I have super-imposed new text: "ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME? DO YOU THINK RAPE IS JUST LIKE AN ACCIDENTAL COLLISION? WHO ACTUALLY THINKS THIS WAY? WHO?"

Original meme shows compact car hitting female pedestrian on roadway. Text was: “FEMINIST LOGIC”
“Don’t tell me when to cross the street. Teach drivers not to hit people.”

Short version: there is no universe in which this analogy is not completely fucking inappropriate in every possible way. This is another one of those analogies that say more about how anti-feminists think of men than about how feminists think of women.

As PZ points out right away, we actually DO have a system of education aimed at preventing motorists from running over pedestrians. Some countries might be more lax than others about enforcement, but here in the US, you need a license to drive. You can be criminally prosecuted for driving without a license. Part of the licensing process is demonstrating that you know how to watch out for pedestrians. Not everyone has the right to drive a car. Some people are not eligible for driver’s licensing because they do not meet the conditions for operating a motor vehicle without putting lives in danger.

Continue reading

How to Learn About Racism from Romeo Rose

The latest chapter in the sordid saga of walking trainwreck Romeo Rose, aka Sleepless in Austin, is that he has been fired from his day job owing to his newfound notoriety as a towering heap of bigotry. I have screencapped his Facebook announcement from Jezebel:

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want him on their payroll.

I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want him on their payroll.

I take this as confirmation that Sleepless in Austin is not a hoax. This guy really is who he says he is, and he really thinks that way.

This follows Radar Online’s revelations of his sexts to a New Jersey woman who tried to take up his challenge to find him a mate. (Teal Deer version: he spends way more time thinking about black dick than he has any right to. He has zero interest in a woman’s boundaries, but that hardly comes as a surprise.)

Continue reading

Control freak insomniac thinks he’s a real catch.

The best way to show you’re totally ready for True Love is to set up a website in which you spend almost 1400 grammar-impaired words detailing what you must have in a potential partner. And you offer to pay someone to help you find this ideal woman. Yep, this guy’s totally gonna make some beautiful, well-employed yet sexually inexperienced girl very happy. Absolutely. (I will underline all his spelling/grammatical errors, just for fun.)

I am looking for a decent girl that wants to be in a long term monogamus relationship with me.

I want the girl to be attractive.

Wouldn’t it be a refreshing change of pace if we saw someone say, “I want my girlfriend to be as unappealing as possible”? Doesn’t everyone want the girl to be attractive? Isn’t that a tautology, anyway? If you want someone, it’s because she’s attractive to you.

I like girls that are thin, or with a toned or athletic build. A average build is fine too, just as long as you are not over weight. I will not date a overweight or fat girl.

*looks at muffin top* Awww, am I not good enough for him?

I like girls that are 130 pounds or less. Of course weight needs to be in proportion to their height, as long as they aren’t considred overweight, they should be fine.

Being overweight is a total dealbreaker with me.

Inability to make proper use of the indefinite article is a dealbreaker for me.

I also like girls with long hair. I like a girl to look like a girl, not a man, I like a feminine, pretty girl. I like hair down to the shoulders at least. Sometimes I can make exceptions if it is shorter depending on how it looks on the girl. But for the most part, I love long hair.

ZZZZzzz *wakes up suddenly* I’m sorry, was he saying something?

Redheads are my favorite, next is Brunettes, and next is Blondes, in that order. I like all 3, but I’m just saying if I had to choose, that’s my order of preference.

Bleh. I don’t want to be a bearer of this guy’s favorite hair color. Thank goodness I chopped my mane down to pixie length recently.

I will not date a Black girl. I don’t care if she looks like Halle Berry, I will not ever date a Black girl.

However, I will date any other race, Hispanic, Mexican, Spanish, Russian, Italian, French, European, White, whatever, anything except Black.

This is the part where black women everywhere sigh with relief!

I do not like glasses on a girl. Although, it’s not a dealbreaker, as long as she can wear contacts at least most of the time.

Dude can pry my big chunky Jill Stuart frames off my cold, dead face.

I do not ever want to have kids, so if a girl is wanting to have babies, I am not her man.

This is the most sensible thing he says in the whole list. The world does not need any more of his genes.

I will not date a girl that does not have a job or career.

I am not looking for any type of woman that is materialistic or a gold digger or expects a man to pay for everything.

He wants a woman who’s economically independent, yet totally under his control. Y’all watch this next one:

I do not like tattoos on a woman. If a woman already has tattoos, it may not be a deal breaker unless she plans to get more in the future. If a woman has something small and feminine like a butterfly or rose already on her ankle or something then it may not necessacerily be a dealbreaker. And it would also help if she would consider having them laser removed, something I might would even pay to have done for her.


To me, tattoos just represent white trash or somone that’s been in prison. I do not care for following trends like mindless sheep and getting tats just because what ever Star on TV got them, they will always be a symbol of White Trash. The Female human body is the most beautiful work of Art God ever created, to tattoo it with ink is the same as vandalising a famous Monet painting with a can of spray paint!

Her body is the most beautiful work of Art (with a capital A), just as long as it’s not fat or black. And it’s never given birth. And she hasn’t ornamented it on her own terms.

I also do not like piercings on a woman. I do not like a woman to have anything pireced other than her Ears. If she has other piercings it’s not a dealbreaker as long as she removes them and never wears them again.


I do not like gamblers. I will not be in any relationship with a woman that gambles or wastes money on such things.

I do not like strippers! I will not date any girl that has ever been a stripper. I believe that the only person that should ever see a womans naked body is only her boyfriend or husband.

Dude, seriously? Not even the chicks in the locker room at the pool?

I will not date any girl that has ever had a threesome, or a large number of past sexual partners. I do not want a promiscuous slut, I want a normal, decent, good hearted girlfriend.

I will not date any guy who uses the word “slut” without irony.

I will not date any girl that can not always be honest & faithful to me. This is very important.

Honest, but will never criticize or disagree with him.

I prefer a girl that does not smoke, but as long as she does not smoke in my house or around me, if she can go outside and smoke, then I can live with that. I lived with my ex girlfriend for Eleven years, and she was a smoker.

Look, just say you want a non-smoker. Don’t bring your ex into it.

I will not date any girl if she is still friends with any men that she has been intimate with in the past, I believe once a relationship with someone is over, it’s OVER.

As evidenced by the way Mr. Sleepless in Austin keeps talking about his ex.

I will not date a selfish woman. I do not like selfish women at all.

I will not date a controlling, judgmental, shallow, unoriginal douche-nugget who can’t even run his long-winded laundry list through a spell-check, so that works out just fine.

I do not like sarcastic or cynical people, I do not like people that always think negatively either, so that type of girl would also not be a good match for me.

Sarcastic and cynical people tend not to have any patience for delusional nonsense. I can see how that would be a problem for him.

I know sometimes on my website here, I may seem like a negative person because I point out sooooo many things that I dislike, but I assure you I am a very positive person, I am just tring to put out here my likes/dislikes so you can know more about me and what type of girl may get along with me.

I do not expect a girl to agree with all of my beliefs or opinions etc, but I do not like to argue, and it’s very important that we can live in peace together if at some point the girl & I live together. I like to live in a quiet & peaceful environment. That is extremely important to me.

Just don’t say anything unless you know he agrees with it. Smile, nod and act like he’s your lord and master, but don’t expect him to pay for everything.

I like a girl that dresses on the conservative side. Not like a slut, and not anything weird. Just normal is fine. T-Shirt & Jeans are OK. But a girl in a dress really gets my heart racing! I also love it when a girl wears a mini skirt with boots, not cowboy boots, but sexy boots. Or high heels, I love spiked high heels!

Dresses on the conservative side, except for when she puts on a mini skirt and sexy boots or spiked heels to show off her non-overweight bod. Dude’s got some exclamation marks and he needs to put them to good use.

I like a girl that takes care of herself and keeps herself clean of course.

Something tells me this is code for “no body hair, ever.”

I love it when a girl wears sexy lingerie in the bedroom! Especially thigh highs!

You can order yourself a Real Doll, and specify that she have long red hair, no glasses, weigh no more than 130 pounds, and you can dress her in sexy lingerie and thigh-highs all day long. You’ll never have to worry about her getting a tattoo or piercing. I think that would solve a lot of your problems.

I need a girl that can be very warm & affectionate and loving.

It’s also nice if the girl has a big heart and appreciates simples things, and understands the value of sentimental things etc.

I like a girl that appreciates romance and the art of courtship.

Guys, if you have any 14-year-old sisters, hide them. I suspect this guy likes ’em young.

Kissing is one of my most favorite things to do with a girl, it’s very important. I also love to hold a girls hand when I am walking with her. And I love sleeping beside a girl and holding her close to me, and spooning with her. In fact THAT is the reason I named this website “Sleepless In Austin” because I haven’t had a single good nights sleep in years, ever since my relationship ended with my ex-girlfriend.

Oh, dear. He will demand that his girlfriend move in with him ASAP, and he’ll get all clingy and possessive if she ever tries to have an overnight without him.

And yes, I also liked the movie Sleepless in Seattle, haha :-D

It dosen’t matter at all to me how big or small a girls breasts are. I prefer them to be real & natural though. I am against breast implants, I see that as unnecessery self mutilation, and I would not want a girlfriend that has breast implants.

Is there such a thing as necessary self-mutilation?

I prefer a woman that has never had children, because having kids does ruin a womans body often times. They end up with stretch marks. And also sometimes it makes their vagina looser, and I don’t care how many kegel exercises a woman does, after she has 2 or 3 eight to ten pound babies, you can’t tell me it’s going to be 100% as tight as it ever was! Plus, what’s even worse than all of that, is sometimes during childbirth the lips/vulva of a woman get torn and they never look the same as the did originally even after they heal, that’s why some women even get cosmetic reconstructive surgery to their vulvas after childbirth to try and regain their original appearance.

Now I’m not saying having had a kid or two is a for sure dealbreaker for me, but it’s a case by case basis, and I prefer a woman that’s never had kids if possible. My ex-girlfriend that I was with for Eleven years never had kids, she couldn’t because of a hysterectomy at a young age.

That…is…a lot of word count to devote to why you must have a woman with no obstetrical history. It’s also a very intimate, unnecessary fact to divulge about your ex. It’s a great way to show us how shallow you are, though, in case your aversion to non-skinny bodies wasn’t signal enough. Did you forget the part where you rail on about the evils of sagging tits?

I like to get a lot of attention in a relationship, and I like to give it as well.

I also have a very high sex drive.

I guess that’s why the girl must have a super-tight pussy?

Since you like sex so much, I’ll give you a hint: short hair doesn’t get in the way!


This is not okay in any universe, either.

This band called Day Above Ground recorded this ridiculous, mindlessly racist song called Asian Girlz, and the lyrics are utterly godawful in the most stupid, lazy way imaginable. When the video made the rounds and drew some backlash, they insisted that of course they’re not racist, no, not at all!

We appreciate all the criticism and support. Our song “Asian Girlz” was not written with any malicious, hateful, or hurtful intent. We know it is racy and does push the boundaries further than other songs out there. Understand that we do not promote or support racism or violence. We love everyone no matter what race, religion, or sexual orientation. Please respect our decision to delete any violent, insensitive, or hurtful comment and also one that supports racism. We hope that we can continue with our lives with much love and peace.

People are not criticizing your song because it’s racy. We’re criticizing it because it’s a transparent pile of stereotypes and objectification. For example:

So baby marry me
Come on sit on my lap (right here baby)
Or we’ll send you back
And you age so well
I can barely tell
17 or 23?
Baby doesn’t matter to me

“Come sit on my lap or we’ll send you back”?

If you don’t want to be called racist, then don’t record “boundary-pushing” songs that make light of threatening immigrant women with deportation. Lyrics speak louder than PR statements.

Louis Gohmert is letting words out of his mouth.

This guy is talking the way words go through my head as I’m falling asleep.

The Texas Republican argued that the amendment was more about protecting wildlife than minorities and other groups.

“There is nobody in this chamber who is more appreciative than I am for the gentleman from Tennessee and my friend from Michigan standing up for the rights of race, religion, national religion of the Delta Smelt, the snail darter, various lizards, the lesser prairie chicken, the greater sage grouse and so many other insects who would want someone standing for their religion, their race, their national origin and I think that’s wonderful,” Gohmert quipped.

He added that the original Republican bill would actually “protect interests” of minorities because it provided for greater transparency.

“It will not allow for some conservative or radical right-wing administration or group in the fish and wildlife to cut a deal with some right-wing radical group and we never know about it so nobody can intervene and stop it,” Gohmert insisted. “So you don’t have some group that is directly aligned with somebody in the administration at that point coming together, cutting a sweetheart deal between themselves, to the determent of the race, religion and national [origin?] of snail darters and other animals and fish and wildlife.”

But…what? Is your brain scrambled? I don’t even know what exactly the message is you’re trying to get across. Did you forget your meds? It’s not fair to people with cognitive impairments or mental illness to lump Gohmert in with them, but I think a neurological disturbance would go a long way in explaining his speech patterns.


Won’t someone please think of the masturbating fetuses!

Dude, what?

“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” said Burgess, a former OB/GYN. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”

So, a male fetus can masturbate at 15 weeks, but not a female one?

Have you seen a newborn make these “purposeful” movements? Babies can’t even coordinate reaching and grasping until around 11 months after birth. Do 15-week fetuses somehow have better motor control than already-born infants?

Something tells me this former OB/GYN is taking orders from the voices in his head. Are we expected to debate the supposed ability of male fetuses—ONLY male fetuses—to jack off, with a guy who doesn’t know how to use pronouns? I’ve lost enough brain cells to listening to womb-controlling pseudoscience already.

Finally: what does the supposed existence of fetal pain have to do with the right to life? We don’t outlaw homicide because the victim feels pain; we outlaw homicide because killing other people is bad. Killing a person who’s sound asleep with a lethal injection is still a felony. If an embryo’s right to be gestated to live birth overrides a woman’s right to own her body (and I have yet to hear an argument for this aside from “OMG you had sex!!!”), then it shouldn’t matter whether it can feel pain and pleasure. A life is a life is a life, regardless of how its nerves function, and an already-born person who can definitely feel pain isn’t entitled to use another person’s blood.

If you don’t want to be called a bigot, then don’t act like Maggie Gallagher.

I read a piece by Maggie Gallagher regarding same-sex marriage (what else?) so you don’t have to. For those not acquainted with the grammar of Reactionary Wingnut, I will translate her word salad into accessible English.

The question, from a reader, is:

I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation for why same-sex couples must be excluded from the institution of marriage, but infertile couples or couples that are legally incapable of having children (e.g. incarceration) should not be excluded.

Right? We haven’t heard a satisfying explanation for why gay couples getting married = doom, while straight infertile/post-menopausal couples getting married are totally hunky dory. We haven’t heard a satisfying explanation because NOM and other Enforcers of Tradition haven’t given one.

So, this is Maggie Gallagher’s reiterated explanation for why same-sex couples are totally different from non-babymaking straight couples. Ready?


I have made this argument repeatedly.  I understand you either disagree with it or can’t hear it.

“I’ve puked up the same talking points so many times! Why do they keep on telling us our positions make no sense?!”


Childless and older couples are part of the natural lifecycle of marriage.  Their presence in the mix doesn’t imply anything about the relationship between marriage and procreation. They’ve always been there.

“They’ve always been there. Childless straight couples must be allowed to marry because they already are. Gay and lesbian couples are accustomed to being excluded, so it won’t hurt them to keep being excluded.”


I went around saying for years “marriage matters because children need a mom and a dad.” Nobody ever said: that’s not true because infertile couples can marry. Never, not once. Sexual union of male and female who are co-parents in itself points to affirms, and regulates an ideal.

“We didn’t have to start talking about the logic of letting childless couples be married until those uppity queers wanted in on the action! Now we have to say things like, if gay couples can get married, then straight parents will start abandoning their kids en masse, and it’s making us look silly.”


Whereas two men, if married, clearly clearly state that either the ideal for a child is not a mom and a dad or that marriage has nothing important or integral to do with that ideal.  When anyone says children need a mom and dad now, the response is a powerful rejection from gay marriage advocates:  that’s a discriminatory idea that has been disproved by science.  The logic of marriage equality has a real cultural force.

“Waaaaa! I don’t wanna hear about your ‘science’ or ‘evidence’ that kids raised by same-sex couples do just fine! You’re hurting my feelings, you big meanie!”


I think that is playing out in the rapid abandonment of the idea that marriage is related to children among the young.  I can’t prove it because cultural logic while a powerful force is hard to translate into social science evidence.

I can provide evidence but not proof.

“I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m just throwing my hands at the keyboard here.”


If we cared seriously about marriage’s role in regulating childbearing, we would not be disrupting this norm on behalf of the maybe one-half of one percent of the population (and that is generous) who wants to enter this institution.  It cannot remain the same institution, as many gay marriage scholars have acknowledged, any more than a boy’s school can admit girls and remain a boy’s school.

“Marriage has always been a boy’s school and must remain a boy’s school, because I say so. Anyway, the gays are just a teensy minority, so who really cares if they’re treated like second-class citizens?”


Marriage equality is going to be used primarily to enforce the new moral norm: no differences between straight and gay can matter.  Or as Think Progress put it recently “At a basic level, it’s logically impossible to say that heterosexuality is better — or should be the norm — compared to homosexuality without simultaneously stating that homosexuality is worse — or abnormal. Either all people are equal in society or they are not; she cannot have her straights-only wedding cake and eat it stigma-free.”

“If the pro-equality people win (as they have won several states already), then I will no longer be able to say straight couples are inherently better than same-sex couples and not be called a bigot. Also, if you step on a crack, you’ll break your mother’s back.”


It is possible to affirm an ideal without stigmatizing the alternatives–to affirm in the positive without pushing the negative.  But gay marriage advocates insist that any affirmation of the ideal represents a denigration of them, no matter how expressed.

“All we’re doing is saying that same-sex parents are no good for kids, and that such couples shouldn’t have access to the legal rights of marriage! Why do they have to treat us like the bad guys?!”


We see it happening all around us while you say you cannot see it at all. Hmm, interesting.  why do you think that’s so?

If I weren’t curious I would be crushed.  So that’s a real question not a snarky comeback.

“If you keep disagreeing with me, I won’t let you sit at my lunch table anymore.”


Really, REALLY Bad Arguments Against Marriage Equality

My attention was drawn to…THIS, today. It kind of makes me feel sorry for the opposition. Maybe, kind of, almost. If I’m inarticulate, it’s because reading this has caused me to lose brain cells.

For Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, California’s gay-marriage ban, the worst moment of the proceedings probably came when Elena Kagan zeroed in on the most consistent and conspicuous weakness in the anti-gay-marriage case, namely that the unchanging purpose of marriage is procreation. (And in that purpose lies the state’s constitutionally defensible rationale—something above mere animus towards gays and lesbians—for excluding them from the institution.) Cooper had been explaining his side’s concern “that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historical traditional procreative purpose” and “refocus” it—away from children and toward “the emotional needs and desires of adults.” Suppose, Justice Kagan asked Cooper, that a state were to pass a law saying it would no longer give marriage licenses to heterosexual couples in which both people were over fifty-five. Would that be constitutional? No, said Cooper. But why not, Kagan persisted, if gay couples could be constitutionally denied marriage rights for the reasons he stated? Cooper mustered a rather weak empiricism: “Even with respect to couples over the age of fifty-five, it’s very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile”; men, he said, “rarely outlive their fertility.” Kagan was skeptical. “I can assure you that if both the woman and the man are over the age of fifty-five there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage,” she said, eliciting the biggest laugh of the morning.

I’m so sorry that I wasn’t sitting next to Justice Kagan. It would have been so, so much fun to ask Mr. Cooper to elaborate.

Dude…are you aware that a post-menopausal heterosexual couple is not HALF-fertile? If the woman can’t get pregnant, then she and her husband, together, are not fertile AT ALL. A heterosexual relationship involving a woman who has outlived her menstrual cycles is not a procreative one. Honestly, young lesbian couples make more babies than 55-year-old straight couples. You see, Mr. Cooper, the role of the uterus in reproduction is absolutely essential and non-fungible. It’s all or nothing, and it’s very costly to the body. Sperm, on the other hand, is not that difficult to acquire!