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 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.

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. 

“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

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 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

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. 

Well well. It’s been awhile. I’ve been writing a book, don’cha know. Actually, you wouldn’t It’s Top Secret Stuff. Onto today’s topic: The MRA peanut gallery on Savage Love.

I’m a reader of Savage Love. You should be too. Dan has an active commenter base, whose purpose (so to speak) is to provide additional and/or secondary advice to the people who write in. Now, most of these commenters are rational, wise, compassionate people from a variety of ages backgrounds. I’m not going to quote their kind and thoughtful posts.

No, instead, we’re going to have a look at the MRAs of Savage Love, whose asshole advice doesn’t quite spoil the soup, but gives it a distinct shit-taste.

So without further ado, let’s present our first letter. DOMME, a mature (38ish) woman is married to a “Type A Professional” pushing 60, with whom (she says in the comments) she has co-founded a company. To summarize (the letter is long) DOMME’s husband is “disinterested in her pleasure”, believes “A married man ‘should not have to pleasure himself.'”, and whose sexual style the letter-writer describes as ‘rapey.’ Her issue stems from this winner’s aversion to providing her oral sex (or even letting her initiate.); and DOMME’s own interest in having a submissive partner who will provide her with oral sex.

Here’s the advice of MRA #1, a man named “Hunter78”.

“You want to be eaten more? Are you shaven?”

Ah, yes. Rather than dump this asshole (perhaps during the Clinton administration), Hunter78 thinks the real issue is how bushy DOMME’s cunt is. If only she would shave, Hunter78 laments, then her husband would lick her ’til dawn. Because a woman is always to blame. 

Also, note Hunter’s charming phrase “D-Birds.” Because he uses it often.

“But no one else can fill those 22 yr [sic]”

According to Hunter78, the longer a woman stays in an unhappy marriage, the less licence she has to ever leave. And anyone who advises her otherwise is a “D-Bird.” He also feels very strongly that the thing this marriage needs isn’t counseling or a divorce lawyer, but a Brazilian Wax.

“I don’t have any hard data, but I do have high expectation that shaved women get eaten more than unshaved.”

Oh rly? I wonder what makes Hunter believe this; his own stated preference, or the porn he beats off to. And unless he’s been poking around in Grandpa’s sexual history, how could he possibly state that “certainly” more women shave now than they did yesteryear?

This brings me to MRA #2, a delightful fellow by the name of seandr.

“The only thing hair does is get in the way.”

As much as I hate to say it, seandr’s right; hair does get in the way. And it gets in the way for a damn good reason: it helps keep dirt and dust from elsewhere out of the vagina, like eyelashes do for your eyes.

I doubt these men have ever kept their pubes shaved for an extended period of time. I have, and I can say from experience it hurts. To shave your pubis is a fucking production, more so than shaving the legs, armpits, or even the face. The contours of a woman’s labia are not suited to the razor, so cuts are an inevitability. So too are the razor bumps.

But seandr’s not a total douchebag, see? After a backlash from the thread, seandr went on to mansplain:

“Look, all of the unshaven pussies out there are truly lovely. I’m married to a woman of Jewish and Mediterranean descent, however…”

Many MRAs are quick to note that they have wives/husbands. I say: pics or it didn’t happen. Apparently seandr never told his wife about trimmers, either.

Some time later, DOMME writes in to answer some questions, notable among which are the fact that her and her husband are co-founders of a certain business; which complicates the option of divorcing him. But of course Hunter78 has another, more profound question:

“curly or none?” “I like armpit hair… even though I don’t like bush.”

What? What?! Seriously, how is that relevant?! This feminist demands an answer!

According to Hunter78, the purpose of feminism is to defend a woman’s right to keep her bush looking like Bob Marley’s hair. Please tell me more about this “feminism”, Hunter!

“Who are the Patriarchs?” A: Not Hilary Clinton, dumbass.

In Hunter78’s world view, feminism is a conspiratorial religion between us girls, so we can blame nonexistent patriarchs for our problems, much like other conspiracy theorists would blame “The Jews” or “The Illuminati.” Nor does feminism do anything in Hunter78’s imagination; much like the actual Men’s Rights Movement, it’s just an excuse for us ladies to stitch & bitch. He waxes on (and on) about how “feminism has no theory of beauty”, as if only ugly women “believe” in feminism.

Don’t believe me? Let’s read it from him:

“This is the kind of feminist man-bashing claptrap that makes me despair rational dialog with feminists. Remember malls?”

Remember… the mall! 

This is why Hunter78 is an MRA. He honestly believes that because women dress the way women usually do, they are somehow choosing to be the sex objects his mind makes them out to be.

Also note the term “painted faces”. Not only is our beauty something we ladies choose to flaunt and taunt Hunter78 with, but his rhetoric suggests that women who wear make-up use it like a mask; that women’s beauty is a falsehood we deliberately use to manipulate jerks like him.

This lost cause has some other gems, in older letters (including an amusing blow-up about his thoughts on sexual harassment laws) but since I don’t want to word-wall my readers like Hunter will, I think I’ll cover those in another post, perhaps over the weekend.

I’ll leave you with one of those weird moments of MRA clarity, from our friend seandr:

Wow, it’s almost like he’s talking about himself.

Me too, seandr. me fucking too.

— Caroline.