MRAs of Savage Love: Yoga Pants Are How Women Won the War

Stop oppressing Hunter78, sexy yoga pants model!

Pants model strategically showing off that sweet, round ass.

Howdy boys and grrrrls. It’s time again for “MRAs of Savage Love”! Tonight, we’re going to hear more from “Hunter78”, whom I featured prominently in my inaugural post in this series.

Usually, I would use this space to introduce the Savage Love Letter on which our delightful, retrograde guests will be giving their advice; but today, I don’t have to. As you’ll see, the comments I’ll feature today actually have nothing at all to do with the letters. Instead, I’ll share with you the comment from auntie_grizelda (a righteous lady with excellent advice) that started this whole mess.

"I could live in my yogas 24/7." - auntie_grizelda, unwittingly lighting a powder keg of crazy.

“I could live in my yogas 24/7.” – auntie_grizelda, unwittingly changing the subject to feminism.

What was that, you say? yogas? Could she possibly mean… yoga pants?!

Yep! After a long day of dealing with her business, auntie_grizelda likes nothing better than the comfortable, flexible, but defining embrace of yoga pants. She’ll even wear them out of the house! Or to her broker’s office! And she doesn’t even do yoga! Watch out, world; auntie griz is wearing the pants now!

But Hunter78 is unhappy with this development. For one; there’s way too much positive attention being paid to another longtime commenter, her personal life, and her fashion sense: and for another, no one’s paying attention to him and the faptastic thing he wrote on the finer points of deep throating. After being ignored for three whole posts, he writes:

"Comfort they say. Women's clothes are always about attractiveness..." - Hunter78

“Comfort they say. Women’s clothes are always about attractiveness…” – Hunter78, telling women why they wear clothes.

Poor Hunter. He must have had to wear a lot of women’s clothing to come to that conclusion. Probably not as much as auntie griz, or LavaGirl, or even myself; but he wore enough of it to know that women’s clothes are always about attractiveness, even if you’re wearing athletic wear. But even a short, sexy sundress doesn’t get Hunter the attention he wants! We go another forty comments before LavaGirl even acknowledges him, saying:

And Hunter78, my my- quite the fashion man. Sundresses, hey?
Spaghetti straps or slightly thicker? Looking forward to your week in review..

So Hunter rolls out the big guns: apparently yoga pants are a symbol of wymyn’s victory in “the war”.

"Unfortunately I can remember when a woman who inadvertently showed her bra straps would be mortified, borrow some safety pins, repair to the rest room and put travel restriction on the errant breast suspenders." - Hunter78, calling bras "breast suspenders"

Hunter78, reminiscing about how women used to be.

His quote is risible, so I’m going to quote it in its entirety, and bold the parts I think you should really laugh at.

Lava,

Spaghetti straps. Yeah, of course. The charm of spaghetti straps is they’re so flimsy. The man is tempted to pull off her top, but all sense argues against that. If a bra is worn, of course the bra straps will show, which are even more interesting.

Hunter78 makes it sound like he spends his summers staring at random women in spaghetti straps, getting boners from the visual stimulation. Also, he makes it sound like it’s the women’s fault for wearing these clothes in front of him, and not his for staring like a horndog at bare shoulders and clothed butts. He waxes nostalgic, to the days of yore; back when yoga pant technology was known only to a few wise yogis high in the Himalaya.

Unfortunately I can remember when a woman who inadvertently showed her bra straps would be mortified, borrow some safety pins, repair to the rest room and put travel restriction on the errant breast suspenders.Women’s underwear was only seen in the boudoir and the advertising supplements of the NYT. Nowadays the coquettish display of bra straps is welcome at all casual occasions, only formal events, business suits and weddings still hold out.

It’s all related to women’s making themselves attractive to men. And how they won the war.

Ew. “Breast suspenders?” Was that what bras were called, back in the days of “boudoirs” and print advertising? You know, back when women never left the house unless they were dressed like Edith Wharton? (Her 1901 house has a boudoir.) Apparently a modern woman’s work-out clothes are, to Hunter78, a “coquettish display.”

Translation: In the world of Hunter78, any woman wearing yoga pants is automatically flirting with him. (That’s what the word “coquette” means; a lady flirt.)

The commenter nocutename has the right idea. She asks:

So we women get more freedom and less absurd constraints, the brassiere industry can charge more for bras that are meant to be at least partially seen, and men getting the visual payoff you appear to appreciate. I’d call that a win/win (or win/win/win)

Why is everything a war with you, with battles to be won and lost?

The closest thing we get to an answer is Hunter78’s insanely long, opposite-day summary of the thread. He does this every thread; usually it’s not very quotable, since he’s digesting a bunch of stuff other people said. But of the matter of the yoga pants, Hunter78 writes:

"I got on my hobby horse, and stated it wasn't just comfort but fashion, too. Women strategically showing off their sweet round asses in detail." - Hunter78, and his stupid hobby

“I got on my hobby horse, and stated it wasn’t just comfort but fashion, too. Women strategically showing off their sweet round asses in detail.” – Hunter78, and his stupid hobby

By his own admission, airing his retrograde ideas on Savage Love is Hunter78’s “hobby horse”. And women don’t wear yoga pants because they’re comfortable, or because they’re going to do some yoga, but to “strategically show off their sweet round asses in detail.” 

It’s not even a complete sentence. But I think it speaks to what Hunter78 gets out of this discussion; a chance to objectify women who write in, be pig-ignorant, and get attention for it. It’s risible, especially because I get the sense that Hunter78 probably knows better than to talk about “sweet round asses” and “coquettish display[s] of bra straps” in front of anyone he talks to IRL.

Advertisements

MRAs of Savage Love: “Potential Murder, She Wrote”

And, we’re back with more stupid, terrible comments; from the incredibly vocal minority of douchebags who use Dan Savage’s SLOG as a personal hangout spot.

Today, our LW is a 30-year-old woman afraid that her husband will literally murder her. And she’s serious about that; he can’t be intimate with her, watches tons of movies and TV shows about real-life murder, and even jacks off to snuff porn. It sounds like being married to an unsexy Dexter Morgan.

Dan’s advice: get him to therapy and GTFO.

Lavagirl’s advice: GTFO

Other advices: Read “The Gift of Fear”, then get out. Or don’t read The Gift of Fear, because if your husband sees you at it, he might freak out and murder you, but still; get out. Your life’s more important.

But Adversary’s advice? Be a little more understanding. 

"When a woman has rape fantasies, we understand it doesn't mean she really wants to be raped. We should also understand that if a man has rape fantasies, it doesn't mean he really wants to rape" - Adversary, missing the point.

“When a woman has rape fantasies, we understand it doesn’t mean she really wants to be raped. We should also understand that if a man has rape fantasies, it doesn’t mean he really wants to rape” – Adversary, missing the point.

The problem here is that the husband doesn’t have a rape fantasy. He has a murder fantasy. And the letter writer “doesn’t mention whether their sex life has ever been kinky” because she’s explicitly stated she hasn’t had much of a sex life with her husband for years. What’s not there can’t be kinky, brah.

Then Adversary writes: “Has her husband ever been violent towards her in real life? Doesn’t sound like it. “GET OUT NOW” seems like an overreaction to the discovery that your husband has sex-murder fantasies.”

Oh rly? If I said this was murder apologism, would I be over-reacting as well? According to adversary, this murder stuff isn’t any worse than say, shit-eating.

"Suppose a wife discovered her husband [had a fetish for] degrading women consuming feces... Should that wife immediately flee the home or risk waking up one morning tied to the bed to be forced to engage in coprophagia?"  - Adversary, being a shithead.

“Suppose a wife discovered her husband [had a fetish for] degrading women consuming feces… Should that wife immediately flee the home or risk waking up one morning tied to the bed to be forced to engage in coprophagia?” – Adversary, being a shithead.

Although shit-eating is a really subversive fetish, I grant it; it’s still not the problem this lady wrote in about. The problem is this her husband is beating off while he thinks about killing his her, and that rightfully scares her. But to Adversary, that discomfort is no different than the discomfort you might have for some other fetish that’s totally beyond the pale.

But Adversary adds; “…would it be better to talk to him, find out if there is a safe way to explore his fantasy that might even enhance their sex life?”

Take note, girls: When a man says he fantasies about shitting on you, and/or murdering you, Adversary says you should get into it, with “fantasizing out loud during sex… finding more practical forms of degradation/submission, simulation using chocolate sauce etc.” 

I can’t believe he thinks being murdered and getting shat on are the same. And note the weird transition: At the top of the paragraph, it’s shit-eating, but at the bottom, it’s being shat on.

Here’s a hint, Adversary: One of those things washes off with soap. One of them doesn’t.

But in Adversary’s opinion, leaving such a man would be “over reacting.” After all, he hasn’t actually tried to kill her yet.

"No one has to explore another person's kinks... It is, however, a nice thing to do for someone you love, and a good way to achieve a stronger, more honest and more exciting sexual connection." - Adversary, on catering to your husband's fantasies about murdering you.

“No one has to explore another person’s kinks… It is, however, a nice thing to do for someone you love, and a good way to achieve a stronger, more honest and more exciting sexual connection.” – Adversary, on catering to your husband’s fantasies about murder.

He goes on to assert: “Also, hasn’t her husband taken responsibility for safety by doing nothing at all, let alone anything unsafe?”

Adversary: how can someone “take responsibility” by “doing nothing”? And this guy isn’t “doing nothing”. Dan Savage compared what he was doing to forcing his wife to live in a grindhouse theater; and it’s a fair comparison.

He does grant that “It is entirely possible that this will be a kink to far for her [sic]… But that is a LOT different from labeling him a threat and fleeing for her life.”

Really? Really? The letter-writer isn’t even allowed to fear for her life without having to take her husband’s feelings into consideration. And if she were really GGG, she’d indulge him in his murder play, even though the letter-writer describes her husband as saying he would only kill her “in a scene gone too far… or a terrible accident.” And then he cries a bit, so I guess it’s all cool.

As commenter “nocutename” notes in Comment #60,

For Fuck’s Sake, Adversary, are you really saying, “so you are in a sexless marriage to a man who watches snuff porn and violent crime shows, and checks gruesome true crime books out of the library even though you’ve told him that you’re uncomfortable having that stuff in your house. And he has admitted he’s thought about killing you–even down to fantasizing the exact way he’d do it, but it makes him “sad” to think about it so he stops ‘for a bit’ and then returns to those fantasies the next day. But hey, it’s probably just a harmless fantasy, and how about if you try indulging it. There are grosser fetishes. Thinking about leaving such a man is over-reacting.”

Which is pretty much exactly my point. And also, that the Stranger really needs to rethink their hands-off moderation strategy when it comes to Savage Love.

P.S. And some delightful person also wrote in to say:

Rotten6661

“I kinda hope he kills her.” – Rotten666

Which describes my feelings about Rotten666 to a T.

JB B Crazy! And also, probably hell-bound.

Janet Bloomfield is someone that I try to include in my prayers; even though I do not want to waste prayers on someone who accused me of sucking 24 dicks at once. I consider this an act of Christian charity, interceding on God’s behalf for such a wretched, hateful woman. 

I'm praying for you, when I can stand to fucking think about you

I’m praying for you, when I can stand to fucking think about you.

I make excuses for Janet to bridge the gap between the shit she says and why. I figure it’s not surprising, considering Janet’s chosen at AVFM don’t give her much room for nuance. I’m certain that they’d dump her in a heartbeat, like they did to WoolyBumblebee, if she didn’t do and say exactly what the menz wanted. And I suppose the rage keeps Janet going in a way I’d find depressing; like some kind of rage alcoholic. So I pray for her, and for her husband; who actually has to spend time in the same room as her when she isn’t typing (not often.) 

But when I read Janet’s writings I know only God’s grace could save her from eternal death. Her recognition on the internet is predicated on her willingness to say awful, untrue things; things which betray her utter indifference to violence and hatred. Without hyperbole, she’s the kind of person who laughs at rape victims.

Don’t believe me? Check it out.

"Comparing a stupid, drunk, helmet-chasing whore who gets fingered while passed out to an actual rape victim is completely and utterly stupid" - Janet Bloomfield.

“Comparing a stupid, drunk, helmet-chasing whore who gets fingered while passed out to an actual rape victim is completely and utterly stupid” – Janet Bloomfield.

Ruh roh, the white boy’s glance seems to say. We’ve been caught. If only we hadn’t raped that sixteen-year-old girl and filmed it, and then casually passed around the evidence for our own amusement.

The sarcasm of this statement will elude Janet Bloomfield, because in her world it’s pretty much kosher for straight chicks to accuse each other of being whores to make or prove a point. That, or she’ll accuse you of having no life, and never getting laid. Heads, she wins; tails, you lose. That’s how shit gets done in JB’s spin zone.

Janet repeatedly refers to the victim as a “young woman.” She was sixteen at the time of the assault. If it was Janet’s own daughter who was raped at sixteen, would she still call the victim a “helmet-chasing whore?” 

I mean, probably not. As Bloomfield notes by saying “Where are all the goddamn grown-ups?”

It would seem these children’s parents are to blame: The victim’s, for letting her be raped and the offenders for not stopping them from raping by stopping the party. Because it’s not like high school students go to great lengths to conceal parties with illegal alcohol from the adults in their lives.

Janet then provides us some links for what she considers “rape”. Two of the three links worked; those that did describe rapes so violent the victim in both cases died. Apparently, it’s not rape to JudgyBitch unless it’s also murder. 

"She's a lying little tramps desperately trying to avoid ANY culpability for what happened to her... make no mistake those boys behaved shamefully. Part of having the adulation and admiration [of] being a small town football star is not the abuse that power when the little gold-digging status whores come a-calling."

“Oh, my! You mean she’s a lying little tramp desperately trying to avoid ANY culpability for what happened to her?” – Janet Bloomfield.

“Make no mistake, those boys behaved shamefully.” But the real sin here is a girl who dares to drink alcohol to fit in. She’s a gold-digging status tramp, whom these boys should have known better than to abuse. But apparently, Janet doesn’t feel strongly that it was really the boys’s fault that they carried her from place to place to rape her, then filmed it because they thought what they were doing was just hi-larious.

It was the girl’s, because “she went to that party to nab herself a football player, and lo and behold the football players didn’t really like such an obvious grasp at their glory.”

Umm, excuse me, JB? What “glory” was this person grasping for, having the audacity to attend a party? And why the possessive “their glory”? Why does it belong to the football stars? Are you intimately involved in high-school cliques across the nation, to know what the victim’s desires were, or what she expected to get out of that party? 

"LittleTramp is free to go about her life, getting as drunk as she likes, chasing after any high-status male she likes, and securing criminal convictions against the men who treat her like the whore she is." - Janet Bloomfield

“LittleTramp is free to go about her life, getting as drunk as she likes, chasing after any high-status male she likes, and securing criminal convictions against the men who treat her like the whore she is.” – Janet Bloomfield

I’m pretty sure that’s not a photo of the victim, but Jesus, Janet. That’s awful. I drink and chase after the people I want to date; does that mean I deserve to be raped, too? But the hits keep coming: 

“The young men in this case will never escape the disgustingly unfair consequences of a night of acting like dicks, while the young woman will carry on, unless she feels she isn’t getting enough sympathy, of course.”

Yes. Let’s focus on those poor young men; who actually had remorse for their actions, unlike Janet Bloomfield. She seems to think rape is “a night of acting like a dick”, and not the horrible crime that it is. Or that some rapes are more “legitimate” than others, which is a slippery slope Todd Akin slid down. Janet Bloomfield gleefully goes coasting on it. 

"It's true that men could protect themselves by not acting like dicks" [read: rapists -ID] "The definition of rape in Ohio is so broadly defined that the act of being a dickhead is now as serious as the act of fucking a woman forcibly against and against her will."

“It’s true that men could protect themselves by not acting like dicks” [read: rapists -ID]
“The definition of rape in Ohio is so broadly defined that the act of being a dickhead is now as serious as the act of fucking a woman forcibly and against her will.” – Janet Bloomfield

So, I know I’m a feminist; so I know you know I’ll say this. But getting finger-fucked is getting fucked; that’s why the word “fucked” is right there, hyphenated. I say again; fucked: like Janet Bloomfield’s logic. Apparently the only rapes that count are those that end with the woman getting murdered. If you can’t struggle it wasn’t a rape. And if you disagree with Janet, you’re a feminist. Oooh, that burns so cold, calling myself the f-word.

But I digress. “Getting drunk and chasing after football stars demonstrates the level of stupidity and disrespect for the humanity of the men in question… and that disrespect was returned.”

So according to JB, the football stars used their spider senses to intuit that the rape victim wanted to be one or another of their girlfriends, and decided that the disrespect was too much, so they put her in her place by raping her.

Except, to quote JB, No one got raped in Steubenville. Someone got humiliated, and she participated willingly and readily in her own humiliation.” 

Really? Are you saying she willingly and readily participated in being passively dragged around from place to place? Or that she willingly and readily allowed herself to be photographed and finger-fucked while she was unresponsive from alcohol consumption? Do you have any idea how batshit that is?  

But JB opines: “Who thinks that if the young woman had woken up the next morning next to a football player, his arms wrapped around her in a loving embrace, the would have considered that the price she had to pay to land the big fish?”

Excuse me, JB? ‘land the big fish’? Is getting to date one of these winners some kind of prize in your fucked-up world? Or do women submit to rape there, hoping that one or another of their rapists might turn out to be husband material? 

"People make stupid decisions. Especially when they're young. They act like idiots. They treat other people with a lack of respect. They behave shamefully. It happens." - Janet Bloomfield, rape apologist

“People make stupid decisions. Especially when they’re young. They act like idiots. They treat other people with a lack of respect. They behave shamefully. It happens.” – Janet Bloomfield, rape apologist

Apparently, the answer to my question is yes. In Janet Bloomfields insane world, it’s only natural for boys to be boys and you know… rape girls. Or young women. Janet can’t seem to decide on that point. 

JB calls this cruel to be kind. Then finishes up with a tasteful naked-left-tit version of Justice. 

Thanks, JudgyBitch. I really wouldn’t have gotten it without that last image in my mind. Best of luck getting the “war novel” you’re writing. I’m sure anyone who likes rape and violence will love it just as much as you do.