Oct. 11, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:35:17
4223 A Window Into Hell Itself! Leftist Dating Nightmares...
A view into the world of leftist dating practices, analyzed by Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio.▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneux
So let's just have a little bit of a chat about all of this stuff.
According to Julianne Escobedo-Shepard, this is from Jezebel, the next step for the hashtag MeToo is into the gray areas.
Just amazing. So, she writes, as we near the one-year mark for the public accusations against Harvey Weinstein, seriously assaulted women, used as power to avoid any consequences for doing so, MeToo, backlash.
For the first time in history, it became ostensibly the mainstream inclination to believe the victim's stories about sexual assault and harassment.
And there's something here which shows up in this article which I am extremely ambivalent about.
Well, there's a lot here. But here it says, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, after two allegations of sexual assault, has not withdrawn.
After two allegations of sexual assault has not withdrawn.
Well, of course, if he didn't do what he's accused of, then he should not withdraw, right?
Because then it's crazy people, politically motivated people, nasty people, vicious people, slandering him for the political purpose.
And his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has already been so widely vilified that she's had to move from her home due to death threats.
Now the death threats are wrong.
Of course they are. But if Christine Blasey Ford is mistaken or lying, then she is out to destroy someone.
The results of that are going to be that she destroys someone's life and threatens the peaceful transition of power that is supposed to characterize a republic.
So... I hate the death threats, but of course they're talking about Christine Blasey Ford's death threats.
They're not talking about the death threats that are pouring in against Brett Kavanaugh's children.
But accuser, she's already been so widely vilified, she's had to move from her home due to death threats.
I don't know. It's very, very tough that he said, she said stuff 35 foggy years later.
I mean, she's a psychologist.
She got a PhD.
And so she should know how malleable memory is, how difficult memory is, how tricky even eyewitness testimony is.
Let me give you an example. I was at the Eagle Forum in St.
Louis last weekend.
And I was watching a presentation on global warming.
And in the middle of it, protesters poured in and were blowing whistles and were screaming at the top of their lungs, you know, when scientists lie, people die, and so on.
And they started off by screaming, mic check, mic check, which I don't know if it's just supposed to confuse you.
Maybe you think it's the AV guys with the mic on or something.
And afterwards, I sat there and I thought, I mean, these guys were in the room for like five or seven minutes.
And, I mean, I made a couple of jokes.
I pointed out that...
Their yelling and screaming was actually adding to the CO2 in the air.
But afterwards, I thought, well, what if they had done something criminal?
And I had been asked to describe their appearance.
And I was like, that's tough.
I mean, I was definitely, you know, like, that was a surprising and unusual situation.
Just me. Like, I was saying, okay, could I describe these people down to a good detail?
Could I pick them out of a lineup?
And I'm staring right at them in a well-lit room for minutes.
Anyway, it's just interesting.
So... The persistent message is that for every small step forward, the status quo will reel us back as forcefully as possible and will always vilify traumatized accusers in doing so.
And this is really amazing, just the dividing line between male and female, right?
Because the status quo here, of course, is the patriarchy.
Will reel us back as forcefully as possible, will always vilify traumatized accusers in doing so.
Now, I don't know how well this paints women.
And again, I'm very sort of sensitive about all of this area.
But, you know, a guy grabbed my dick when I was a teenager.
I can't really say that it traumatized me.
It was unpleasant.
I got out of there. But it's not like I wake up in cold sweat decades later.
This idea that a man makes a very forceful pass that a woman tries to grab her, tries to take her clothes off, she gets out.
And she's traumatized 35 years later.
Again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm perfectly open.
I'm just telling you my sort of bare thoughts at the moment.
Doesn't that make women very, very...
Delicate. And that delicacy translates into power.
This is the problem, right? When you turn delicacy into power.
So if you can be traumatized because a guy tried to pull your clothes off 35 years ago, well, there's a kind of weakness, right?
Which gives you a huge amount of legal power because then you can accuse people and you can try to harm people and this...
Pretense of weakness gives enormous power.
And here's the thing too, vilify traumatized accusers.
It's a very, very tough thing to unpack because she could be wrong.
We all understand that, right?
Eyewitnesses are wrong all the time.
People go to jail for the wrong reasons all the time.
Innocent people get attacked all the time.
So she could be wrong.
But you see, there's no sense in these articles, or this article in particular that I see, there's no sense that Christine Blasey Ford could be wrong, could be mistaken, could be politically motivated.
It's part of a fairly well-studied phenomenon.
It's called Women Are Wonderful.
WAW, it's the war phenomenon.
Women are wonderful. See, she's perfectly honest.
She's never politically motivated.
She has no thirst for power or publicity.
She never wants attention.
She's not going to look at the invitations to conferences, the speaking fees, the book deals, the hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars she could end up.
None of that has anything to do with anything.
She's just a traumatized accuser.
That characterization of women As perfect and fragile at the same time is very old school.
It's way back to chivalry that women are always perfect and women are intensely, incredibly fragile.
So I just... There's no sense that she could be wrong.
No sense. It happened.
It's true. You must believe victims.
Now, we know how sexist this is deep down, right?
We all understand that. Because when she says, we must always believe accusers, of course, there's your traditional thing, which is, well, if your accuser is saying things about a Democrat politician, a leftist politician, then you're not believed at all.
You're not believed at all.
So, of course, the women who accused victims Bill Clinton of rape and sexual assault and predation of just about every horrendous kind, they're not to be believed.
The women who are accusing Keith Ellison, the Democrat black Muslim congressman, They are not to be believed.
Those stories are to be ignored. So clearly, it's fine to not believe some women, but other women must be sanctified as perfect.
The women who accuse politicians on the left must be ignored and downplayed, whereas the women who accuse politicians on the right must be automatically believed.
So clearly, just based on that simple basic fact, It's a political power play.
I mean, it's not that women should be believed, and therefore, all women should be believed, and therefore, you know, Keith Ellison has been accused, and she's got medical records, she's got pictures of them together, she's got text messages, she says she has a video, and she has...
There's at least one 911 call that corroborates.
So tons of corroboration, much more recent, much more provable, but those women are to be completely ignored.
So we understand that this is automatically a political power play.
Christine Blasey Ford is accusing a Republican, and therefore she must be believed.
The women who accuse Democrats must be ignored, downplayed, and not believed, not even given a voice, right?
And the fact that these accusers seem to be very hesitant to testify under oath and to be cross-examined, that does not look very well.
It does not look very good.
So, I mean, this is projection, right?
Because the women who accuse leftist politicians, they are traumatized and they are vilified.
So this is all just projection.
The institutional and political disbelief of and disdain for women by the administration, a continuation of the pussy-grabbing tape of 2016.
Somehow not having disqualified candidate Trump for the presidency.
Well, see, Hillary Clinton is married to a guy.
Who's been accused of rape and sexual assault.
And she attacked and vilified his accusers.
So I'm not sure how Hillary Clinton gets to escape all of this.
Except, of course, that she's more on the left and Trump is more on the right.
So let's go back to some of this stuff.
Now, what's interesting here is she mentions...
Louis C.K. should be allowed to make a comeback.
Matt Lauer should be reinstated.
Whether John Gamache were real victims.
Well, John Gamache had certainly distasteful personal habits, but without a doubt, did a whole presentation on this.
The woman did not tell the entire truth to the police, to put it as nicely as humanly possible.
And that's why he was acquitted.
Yet Me Too's next direction is toward a deeper look at some of the most common and harder to define experiences.
Wow. It's looking toward a more equitable world in which women and other marginalized genders can live less fearfully by digging deeper into the gray areas and educating all of us about the harm they perpetuate.
So there's Me Too founder Tarana Burke told Yes magazine in January, and I quote, The grey area is really important to talk about because so many of us live in the grey area.
People talk a lot about how men are confused about consent, and they don't know if you should touch this or touch that, or ask.
But I also think there are issues around consent for women as well, because we've been socialized to believe that we have to give in to the whims of men.
That you have to, well, okay, he asked three times, he asked four times, I gave in on the fifth time, and I'm not saying that giving in is automatically sexual assault, but it definitely is a gray area.
We've been socialized to believe that we have to give in to the whims of men.
Now, I had a couple of dates when I was younger, and I really don't remember a lot of women giving in to the whims of men.
And I'm just talking about where we should go, what we should do, nothing sexual.
And, yeah, women were pretty feisty, pretty, crunchy, socialized to believe that we have to give in to the whims of men.
So that's fascinating.
Because in the 2016 election cycle in the U.S., you had a man and you had a woman.
So according to this theory, the man, i.e.
Donald Trump, should have garnered massive support among women, because you see women just give in to the whims of men.
Women should not have supported Hillary Clinton, because there was a powerful alpha male who wanted women's votes.
And so there should be no support in any contest between a man and a woman.
The women should automatically support the man in general because they've been socialized to believe they have to give in to the whims of men.
Except that doesn't happen.
That doesn't happen at all.
It's actually quite the opposite.
This is more... This is more projection, right?
The reality is that men are socialized and biologically programmed to give in to the whims of women, at least in the West, right?
Because men can't force women to marry them.
Men can't force women to have sex.
It's illegal, of course, in both situations.
Men can't take multiple wives.
And so in the West, women choose men, which means that men have to please women in order to survive.
And historically, many more women reproduced than men.
So it was...
A seller's market when it came to sexual access.
Women chose the men who they allowed to have sex with them, who they allowed to reproduce with them.
And so the idea that somehow women just wake up in the morning and try and figure out how to please men.
No. Women wake up in the morning in sort of sexual market value terms.
Women wake up in the morning. And try to make themselves as physically attractive as possible.
They put on heels to accentuate their calves, lengthen their legs, to put their butt on the shelf.
They put on makeup to increase the contrast between shadows and light, which makes them look more feminine.
They put on red lipstick in order to look like they are extremely sexually aroused or just having an orgasm and so on.
They tease their hair, they smooth their skin, they get Botox in order to make their ancient eggs look younger than they actually are, and they sit around and wait for men to give them resources, which men will do.
So, of course, Men, not just are socialized, but are biologically programmed in the West, to give in to the whims of women, of course, right?
I mean, it's not like men really love the family court system.
It's not like men really love having higher suicide rates.
It's not like men really love having shorter lifespans.
It's not like men really love dying, you know, 900 to 1 or 99 to 1 on the battlefield.
It's not like men like having the vast majority of workplace accidents, injuries, and deaths, and so on.
So, yeah, it is...
It is just wild. So here, you see, I gave in on the fifth time.
And I'm not saying that giving in is automatically sexual assault, but it definitely is a gray area.
So the woman can say yes if you're persistent.
If you're persistent.
If you ask a number of times for sexual access, the woman eventually says yes.
It's a gray area.
Could be. So even if the woman consents, verbally consents, if the man is persistent, this could be sexual assault.
How do we talk about behavior that is harmful and inequitable but isn't illegal?
Well, that's a very interesting...
And don't get me wrong, this is genuinely a fascinating question because the kind of sexual politics that occur between men and women far more are involved in what these people call a gray area than illegality.
So, we turn to a fellow named Jack Smith IV. So, he made a name for himself over the last year and a half as a senior writer and correspondent covering the extremist right for Mike, a website known for its progressive takes on social justice.
So, he's a lefty, I assume he's a feminist, and he invents enemies who he calls the extremist right.
I'm sure there are a few that are the extremist right, but given that many mainstream alternative media figures are called the extremist right, I assume that he's made up some enemies.
So he got arrested in 2017 while covering the Standing Rock protests, and he wrote about involuntary celibates, incels, men's rights activists, and neo-Nazis.
So he wrote about men who have been left behind in the sexual revolution, because in the past, with monogamy, And with pair bonding, like one man, one woman, marriage forever, which is what Western civilization was founded on, just about everyone who wanted to get married and have kids could, and 90 plus percent of people did.
And so with rampant female promiscuity, with the delay of marriage, Settling down if it even happens until the 30s when the woman often has, you know, STDs and she's been, she's had way, she's got like the thousand penis stare, you know, she's had way too much sex and she's lost her capacity to bond and she's much more likely to divorce you and take half your stuff.
The other half of your stuff goes to the lawyer.
So, yeah, there are, and women have these ridiculously high standards.
So women rate 80% of men as below average in attractiveness, right?
So women have these ridiculously high standards.
Standards. And so a small number of men, like 20% of men, get 80% of the women.
And this is a huge imbalance and hugely problematic for society as a whole.
And of course, women don't need to rely on men because they can run to the government to get their resources.
In other words, they can go to the patriarchal government to get the patriarchal police force to take money from the patriarchal Income earners forcibly transfer it to them against the will of the patriarchy, and then they can use all of that money to set up blogs complaining about how evil the patriarchy is.
You understand how this works?
I shouldn't laugh, but it is kind of funny.
So he writes about involuntary celibate men.
He writes about men's rights activists and neo-Nazis.
Now, I gotta tell you, I mean, early feminists, yeah, they sometimes had a hard time with it, but I'm pretty sure that this, they were not, in the mainstream media, they were not bunched in with Nazis.
So, yeah, men who can't get a date, and there are hundreds of millions of these men in the West, men's rights activists and neo-Nazis.
That's quite a bag of language there.
So he did videos about racism and xenophobia.
He tweeted to his nearly 45,000 followers about the next white supremacist rally in Charlottesville and Milo Yiannopoulos.
Right? So he was an authority on the far right, men's rights activists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Milo Yiannopoulos, and misogyny.
Leftist poster boy. Now, for those of you who've been following this stuff, you know how this works, right?
That the men who claim to be feminists are very often revealed as pretty horrible.
Predators. So Smith is the model of a type of journalist who has flourished in the age of hashtag resistance.
Resistance to reality.
Defiantly left. Yeah.
Get lost, man.
Come on. This is so ridiculous.
I mean, this idea that the left...
It's some sort of insurgency.
The idea that the left is some sort of resistance.
The idea that you have to be defiant if you're on the left is ridiculous because the left runs just about everything.
I mean, the left didn't get to run the 2016 election, which is why they can't handle it, because they hit some sort of barrier to the ever-expanding lava mode of power.
So the idea that, you know, he's resistance, he's defiantly left.
Defiant to who? Who disagrees with him in his social circle?
Who disagrees with him in mainstream media?
Who disagrees with him in Hollywood?
Who disagrees with him in academia?
Who disagrees with him on television?
Come on, defiantly left.
Ah, the Rockefeller's defiantly anti-materialistic.
All right. He's fluent in the discourse of privilege, supplemented his writing, and video hosting slots, with his ability to exploit social media, garner as much attention, blah, blah, blah, ensconced in media circles.
Yes, you see, he's ensconced in media circles, but he's defiant and part of the resistance.
See, they don't even notice.
Don't even notice. Well known across a certain cross-section of progressive journalism, which is to say, journalism.
A recent former roommate is a staffer at Gizmodo Jezebel's sister site.
So, he's a straight white male who has allied himself with the marginalized.
Yeah, this marginalized stuff.
You know, when women are, you know, living longer, when young women, unmarried women, are making more than men, when women get often faster and better access to healthcare, when women are the majority, a vast majority in HR, which is a huge gateway to control access to a corporate organization.
To corporate jobs, when women are the significant majority in university, yeah, just so marginalized.
Yeah, yeah, you go to a university, go to a sociology department, go to a psychology department, just see how marginalized women are.
Yeah, all they're doing is mopping the ground and cleaning toilets.
Terrible. So he discusses virulent misogyny, you see.
So he seems to me like just a general purveyor of patriarchy, fear porn.
And incels, their relation to the Me Too movement.
He's been the host, blah, blah, blah.
He speaks about racism, sexism, and bigotry of all sorts.
So the open mind with Alexander Hefner.
See, your mind can be so open, your brain just falls out.
The host described him as, quote, one of the leading chroniclers of the modern age fascist and anti-fascist movements, and a most audacious truth-telling journalist when the status quo of reporting is to magnify the sensational forthright, forthcoming, demanding that we confront hate and hold accountable those who infect our society with it.
See, he seems to hate a lot of groups, and this is the basic reality, is those who see hate everywhere think that they're looking...
Through a window when they're actually just looking in a mirror.
Because this guy seems to hate a lot of people.
He hates anybody who's an incel.
He hates anybody who he can label as racist or sexist or a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist or a white nationalist.
He hates sexist people.
He hates you name it, right?
He just hates just about everybody he can lay his eyeballs on.
So again, the lack of self-knowledge of the projection is just astonishing.
Okay, so this guy is a moral expert and he's He's outed, he's touted as a moral expert, as a deeply moral human being who should control a moral debate in society and bend it towards this leftist narrative.
So Smith's public persona doesn't square with his behavior toward them.
It's called camouflage, people!
It's called camouflage!
Do you think that the chameleon just has like neon flashing signs saying, want to eat stuff?
Want to eat stuff? Here I am, predators!
It's called camouflage! It's why the octopus changes their color.
It's why the zebra has stripes.
It's called camouflage! Ah, this way I can move into the enemy camp.
They're all going to think that I'm a friend.
And then I get to reveal, mask comes off, right?
I mean, they're just completely...
So these people have no idea what a predator is, right?
They have no idea. All they do is look at the surface, they listen to the words, they listen to the sophistry, and they just nod along and believe it because confirmation bias, blah, blah, blah, right?
Alright. So they portray a picture of someone whose behavior is in sharp contrast to what would be expected of a fierce public advocate for progressive politics.
Right. There's no such thing as an insurgent.
There's no such thing as a spy.
There's no such thing as camouflage.
There's no such thing as adopting the language of an enemy in order to infiltrate and abuse people.
I mean, this is like so naive.
It's so naive, and of course, well, we've made society so safe that people are now...
Well, they've become like Labrador dogs.
Way too friendly, way too naive.
Okay, so this guy, he's since been fired.
He was subject to an internal investigation to his alleged mistreatment of women.
So then... In June, some Mike staff came to Jezebel with allegations about his private life that were circulating among outside reporters and on social media.
This is Lowerman.
This is Mike's executive news director, Kerry Lowerman.
She's saying this. So anyway, they put him on paid leave.
Human Resource Team began an internal review of his workplace behavior, blah, blah, blah.
So three years he was on staff.
So, Jezebel spoke with five women on the record, each of whom separately contacted Jezebel after forming a sort of whisper network about their experiences with Smith, which date as far back as 2012, and was recently of June as this year.
So, I do want to talk about these stories because I find it just fascinating.
So, All of these women accuse Smith of behavior they variously describe as emotional abuse, manipulation, and gaslighting.
So gaslighting is when you present contradictory information and then you convince the other person that they're the crazy one, so you act in a bizarre or random fashion, or you present stuff that doesn't make sense, and then you convince the other person that they've misunderstood, that they're crazy, that they don't understand things, and so on, right?
So three of these women say independently of one another that these tactics led to coercive sex.
Coercive sex. The United States Government Office on Women's Health defines sexual coercion as, and I quote, unwanted sexual activity that happens when you are pressured, tricked, threatened, or forced in a non-physical way.
Coercion can make you think you owe sex to someone.
It might be from someone who has power over you, like a teacher, landlord, or a boss.
No person is ever required to have sex with someone else.
Pressured, tricked, threatened, or forced.
So you could be tricked into having sex.
So if a woman wants to have sex with you but doesn't tell you she has a boyfriend, is that sexual coercion?
Well, of course it is. Because then you're tricked into having sex.
Because if she told you she had a boyfriend, then you wouldn't have sex with her, right?
But you're only having sex with her because you think she's single.
What if she tells you that she's 30 when she's in fact 35 or 32 or 31?
We'll see more about this weird age stuff in a sec.
Does that trick you? Into having sex?
What if she tells you she's on the pill or she tells you she can't get pregnant?
And then not only do you have sex with her but she becomes pregnant.
Turns out she wasn't on the pill and turns out that it was not for certain that she couldn't get pregnant.
Just wild. And I mean I've had a couple of situations when I was younger where women It was more of a bribe than anything else.
So I remember sitting in a car with a woman who said that she could get a play of mine produced on radio if I was willing to go out with her.
I remember another woman who offered to get a book published for me if I would sleep with her and so on.
And, I mean, you just say no because it's gross.
But the idea that that was then...
I don't know. So, yeah.
It might be from someone who has power over you.
Yeah. So what about women who threaten men with calling the cops on the men, right?
Who say, I'm going to call the cops and tell you that you did something mean to me, unless you do X, Y, or Z. What about a woman who uses excessive makeup?
What about a woman who's used Botox to make herself look younger?
What about a woman who uses hair dye to make herself look younger?
Let's say that you get involved with a woman.
You don't ask a woman her age right up front.
But let's say she's done a lot to make herself look younger.
What if she's had plastic surgery to make her face look more attractive?
And then, let's say you want to have attractive children, so you date a woman and part of attractiveness is hereditary, like evenness of features and so on.
Look at me gesturing at my face while I'm talking about attractiveness.
You're so modest. So what if the woman has had some sort of, like, you don't want a kid with a big nose, she's had a nose reduction surgery, she doesn't tell you, which means genetically it's more likely your kid's going to have a big nose, maybe you don't want that.
Is that tricking you into something?
Hmm. Interesting, interesting questions.
What if she's had liposuction to take away fat deposits, of course, in her body?
Now, obesity can be genetic, right?
So if you have a fat mom or a fat dad, then sometimes you can end up with the propensity for obesity being passed along genetically.
So if she's had liposuction, she still retains those genes, I assume.
So if she's had liposuction and you go out with her because of that, well, she looks like she's slender.
When she was, in fact, fat, she didn't have the willpower to lose weight, so she lost weight through having it sucked out of her body with something that seems akin to a vacuum cleaner.
So is that a trick?
Is that a trick? I don't know.
Okay, so the rape, abuse, and incest national network goes further, explaining that assault doesn't always have to involve violence.
Force doesn't always refer to physical pressure.
Perpetrators may use emotional coercion, psychological force, or manipulation to coerce a victim into non-consensual sex.
Man, are we ever entering into a foggy realm that is going to have very, very little good outcome and almost all bad.
Because the way that you know...
That a woman, let's say, has been raped, is that she's got bruises, her vagina is torn, she's got, like, who knows, right?
Her clothing is torn, the people heard her screaming, she's got the guy's skin cells under her fingernails because she's clawing at him to get him away.
Physical evidence, right? I don't know, non-consensual sex.
Very interesting. All right, so we're going to skip a little bit here.
And go to what actually happened.
Because I find this endlessly fascinating, and I'm very happy to be married.
All right. Let's see here.
Okay. So there's one woman.
So this woman named just Erica.
She's chosen to use her real name.
In August 2017, she put a Twitter thread together, and this is her first public accusation.
She says, during a sexual relationship with Smith from 2014 to 2017, which began when they met in college and continued well after they graduated, their encounters included instances of forceful sex, she now describes as coercive.
There's another woman named Jenny who describes being pressured into sex with Smith while they were high on weed.
A woman named Nina, these are pseudonyms, says, Smith coerced her into sex after an hours-long barrage of emotional abuse and manipulation.
And Becca Hsu, who was chosen to use her real name, describes emotionally manipulative interactions with Smith that she says created a climate of anxiety and fear.
So they try to contact Smith and all that, you know, covering their butts, which is good.
So, just amazing.
So, let's talk about what actually happened.
So... Jezebel spoke to this woman.
I'm not going to differentiate between real names and pseudonyms.
This is all in the article. Nina.
She recounted an experience with Smith that had occurred only a week before and appeared to be in the beginning stages of processing what happened, visibly shaking and stopping the conversation several times to cry into a pillow.
Her account of one night resembles patterns of behavior that others say is kind of common with this guy.
Blonde, thin, stands a little over five foot three.
She told Jezebel that she first matched with Smith on Tinder.
That's the swipey app and so on, right?
It's a hookup app, as far as I know.
The first two dates seemed normal, if intense.
Both times, we did have a connection, she says, and on their second date, on May 19th, they had consensual sex.
There's a lot in this, and this is a lot to do with why Brett Kavanaugh is being so strongly opposed, because women, in general, are terrified that if there are restrictions on abortion, and by that I simply mean that maybe the woman herself or the man she's made a baby with are going to have to pay for it,
but if there's any restriction on abortion, Abortion access, then women are going to start to have to bring more to the table than sexual access, because the risk for having sex with women will go up considerably, and it is extraordinarily high at the moment.
Just look at the STD graphs for the current year versus 2013, and it's intense, horrible, just how widespread STDs are.
And so... What does she bring into the table?
Well, men want to have sex, and if a woman brings sexual access to the table, she has value outside of her personality, outside of her skill set, outside of her maturity, and her wisdom, and her virtue, and her, you name it, consistency, her tenderheartedness, her caring, her capacity to support a man or lead a man if that's what he wants.
You just have to bring a hole to the table.
Sometimes, I guess, literally.
But you don't actually have to bring quality of personality.
You simply have to bring sexual access.
Now, I will tell you this, and we all know this.
We used to know this more, but we all know this deep down, right?
A woman feels extraordinarily cheapened, hollowed out, and has contempt for herself when she brings sexual access to gain the attention of a man.
It's not called the walk of shame for nothing.
I know people joke about it, but it is.
Because she's saying, the value that I have is the hole between my legs.
That's the value of That's why the only reason a man would be interested in me is not because he might love me, not because he might value my personality, not because he might admire my virtues or strength of character or whatever, but because he can dump his seed in my hole and move on.
That is horrible.
And it is an even more personal manifestation of something like, you know, if a man is rich, And he has to pay for friends to be around, right?
He has to foot the bill every time he goes out.
He has to fly people around, otherwise they, you know.
And the moment he refuses to do that, they don't want to spend any time with him.
So a man who has to buy his friends is cheapening himself and saying, well, it has to be me plus money for people to be interested in me.
In the same way a woman will say, it has to be me plus sexual access in order for a man to To pay any attention to me, to want to spend time with me, it has to be sexual in nature.
I have to offer up sex.
That is the saddest thing that I can conceive of for a woman, and there are sad things for men as well.
But that is terrible, and it hollows out women.
And the graphs are very, very clear.
We did the Truth About Sex presentation some years ago.
The more The more sexual partners a woman has, the more likely she is to end up divorcing a man, because she's got no capacity to bond anymore.
It's worse for women than it is for men.
Men are kind of designed to be hound dogs and so on, but for a woman to offer up sexual access as the central reason why a man would be interested in her is a very humiliating and destabilizing thing, and society used to recognize this, which is why no sex before marriage.
I mean, this is one of the reasons why the left is going so hard after Brett Kavanaugh, because he was a handsome, Now, for the left, that's incomprehensible.
And deeply enraging.
And he ended up, you know, happily married, a great family man, a wonderful career in law.
I mean, to get to the Supreme Court in, what is he, in his early 50s?
It's incredible, right? So self-restraint equals success.
That's very tough for the R-selected left.
Sorry, R-selected, if you want to watch my presentation.
Gene Wars, that's G-E-N-E Wars.
It's worth doing. On their second date, they had consensual sex.
I remember talking to a guy...
Years ago. It's probably 20 years ago.
And he was saying to me that if you didn't have sex by your third date, something was wrong.
And I just remember thinking, I guess I'm kind of old school.
I mean, I guess the women I was going out with when I was younger, they were raised by old school.
And a lot of them came... It's interesting, I sort of realized this after the fact, that a lot of the women I dated when I was younger came from...
Families, like the parents had come from other countries, other cultures, so they were kind of old school.
They were old school as immigrant cultures tend to be, right?
And the idea, third date, I don't know.
It's just, it's very, very odd.
So on their second date, they had consensual sex.
Now why? Why would she give sex on the second date?
And of course, you know, women have sexual desire and so on, but The consequences of sexuality for women are far greater than the consequences of sexuality for men.
Even if you get a bad STD, you can become infertile.
You get pregnant.
You have your life arc completely changes.
So it is tough.
So why would you have sex with a guy on the second date?
Now, she would know immediately that he was a high-status man in his world.
And women respond sexually to high-status men.
I mean, you don't need to read Fifty Shades of Grey, which is one of the first fully linguistic comic books of girl porn in the history of the planet.
You don't have to read Fifty Shades of Grey to know that women sexually respond to high-status men.
Why? Because high-status men have resources.
More resources is more...
Resources for the children and more comfort for the woman and so on.
So that's natural, right? So he's a high-status man in her world, right?
And then the question, of course, is why would she have sex with him?
Because she's... I assume she's nervous that he won't be interested in her if she doesn't have sex with him.
So he indicates a preference for sex.
Why? Because he's a guy. And he's a high-status guy, which means he's going to be a player.
I mean... I don't care what your politics are.
That's just the biology of the situation.
So he's a high-status guy.
He's going to be a player.
So then, why would she have sex with him?
Well, he would indicate a preference for sex.
And then she has to do the calculation, which women have to do.
And I sympathize with this enormously.
She has to do the calculation, which says...
I want to have this high-status man.
I want him to be my boyfriend.
I want him to be my fiancé.
I want him to be my husband or whatever, right?
I want to bond with this high-status man.
Now, if I say yes to sex, then I'm providing value to him, but that may harm my capacity to stay with him long-term.
If I say no, then I get to find out whether he's interested in me or just my vagina.
Right? Is he just looking at me as a sex object?
Or does he actually care about me as a person?
Ah, it's a tough calculation.
It goes back to that song, Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?
So she did the calculation, which women have to do, which is, is he interested in my brain or my vagina?
And she said, I'm going to go with vagina.
Now that is a very destabilizing thing to do, and the seeds of doom within the relationship were sowed in that decision.
So, they had consensual sex on the second date.
How well did they know each other?
No. For a few days after, they didn't see each other.
Conflicting schedules, blah, blah, blah.
So Smith then didn't respond to several text messages.
So Nina said she attempted to end their brief relationship, saying it was clear it was going nowhere.
Right? So, yeah. He has sex with her, and he kind of ghosts her, right?
So then, Smith texted later writing, I'm surprised you couldn't sense my interest in you.
You're very sensitive to praise, not a criticism.
Ah, interesting.
So this is the first foray into manipulation, right?
You have, if you're interested in a girl, after you have sex, you text her.
You know, you call her, because, you know, it's a vulnerable time for a woman, right?
Because she's finding out, is this the beginning of a relationship, or did he just use me for sex?
Of course, logically, as feminism's concern about women being treated as sex objects went up, then sexual access should have gone down.
But that's not the case.
Because, of course, if women are very concerned about being treated as sex objects, then they should not give sex out.
They should find out if the man's actually interested in them.
But as feminism says, well, your men are just going to treat you as a sex object.
They're like, oh, I had sex with them on the second date.
It's like, how on earth is this feminism helping, right?
Well, of course. So then he says, I'm surprised you couldn't sense my interest in you.
You're very sensitive to praise, not a criticism.
So he has sex with her, and then he doesn't respond to her texts for a couple days.
And she's like, okay, well, we're done, right?
And then, after he gives her the signals that he's not interested in her, he says, oh, I'm surprised you couldn't sense my interest in you.
You're very sensitive to praise.
Not a criticism. So this is mind games.
And what he's doing is he's putting his bait in the water, in my opinion, right?
He's saying, hey, I wonder if I say that she's wrong.
Because he didn't text her for a couple of days after they had sex, which is wrong, if you're interested in the woman, right?
Because how long does a text take, right?
The idea that, oh, okay, didn't see each other because of conflicting schedules.
So I guess that could happen.
But he didn't respond to several text messages.
And then he's trying this bait.
He's trying to say, so he writes and says, I'm surprised you couldn't sense my interest in you.
You're very sensitive to praise, not a criticism.
And he's trying to figure out if she's going to fall for this manipulation, right?
And she responds with, ah, I'm sorry, maybe a lot of this was in my head.
We texted a lot over the weekend, and then the quick fall-off non-replies to the two times I asked you if you were still into it got me thrown off.
Ah, yeah, so she later, I got this.
She would later characterize this as Smith's first attempt to gaslight her by ignoring her and then making her feel that she had interpreted his lack of response incorrectly.
And she does. So she, oh, I'm so sorry.
I guess I'm crazy.
Boom. Right? She's caught.
She's caught. Anyway.
So she keeps a handwritten daily calendar, a series of notes.
She made her third date with Smith June 6th.
That night they attended a comedy show at the Knitting Factory with a group of friends, including her roommate Lisa, a writer and podcaster, using a pseudonym for Lisa to protect Nina's identity.
Smith's behavior was quiet and withdrawn.
He sat in the corner, which kept her apart from her friend group.
She says she had about three drinks, an amount that made her drunk.
Not blackout, but drunk.
Later they went to a fast food restaurant near her apartment in Bushwick, where she says she made a joke about Tinder dating.
He responded that he thought she wasn't dating that much and sniped at her before badgering her and telling him details about the last person she dated.
So that's creepy stuff, right?
Tell me about your last boyfriend.
I mean, that's just weird conversation, right?
So as they walked back to her apartment, she says she offered to call him a car.
At which point his demeanor abruptly shifted, turning sullen and angry.
Right. So she's saying, I'm not enjoying the date.
I'm going to call you a car. We're going to end the evening, right?
So his demeanor abruptly shifted, turning sullen and angry.
And this part, I don't understand this connection, to be honest.
When they returned to her empty apartment.
So she's not enjoying the date.
She basically says, I'll call you a car.
We'll call you an Uber. We'll get you out of here.
And then he gets sullen and angry.
So wouldn't that mean, let me call you a car even faster?
I'm not enjoying the day. Now that you're turning sullen and angry, it's even worse.
So why? Why?
The next phrase, when they returned to her empty apartment.
Why? Oh, because the sullen and angry thing works.
Why? I don't know.
Can't imagine what her childhood was like, what her father was like, if he was even around.
But this idea, oh, someone's angry at me.
Therefore, I'm going to comply with them.
I mean, that's a terrible personal habit.
I mean, again, I sympathize, right?
This woman is fragile, it seems, right?
So when they return to her empty apartment, Nina says, Smith began an hours-long bout of verbal abuse standing over her as she curled up on the couch, pointing his finger and accusing her of lying to him about everything from her dating history to her age.
Good lord! What?
It's like the play, Pet de Sortie, No Exit.
Hell is other people, right?
This is a guy, he dies and he goes into a room.
He thinks he's in hell, but there are no demons.
And it just turns out everybody emotionally and mentally tortures each other.
Hell is other people. Is she curling up on the couch?
He's... Our verbal abuse, like, what a nightmare.
What are you people doing?
Say no! Tell him to get lost.
Tell him to get out. But she can't.
Why? She's empowered.
She's a feminist. He's a feminist.
Why is there this helplessness?
What has feminism done to women that she ends up in this situation?
So he accused her of saying she is 27 when she's in fact 28, and later he accused her of being 29.
She never lied about her age to Smith or a friend of his that she had dated, blah, blah, blah.
Nina says she first burst into tears from what she describes as Smith viciously berating her for being shady, dishonest, and a liar.
Again, see the projection, right?
I told him, this is what she says, I told him his body language was intimidating me, and not to yell at me, to which he said, this isn't yelling!
I don't know, this is not in caps, so who knows, right?
So then this guy demands to see her state ID, took a photo of it without permission, and then implied that the ID was fake, saying the photo didn't look like her.
She says, I was drunk and apologetic, and still felt like I was in the wrong.
So she pulls out her, I mean, what a nightmare!
She pulls out her birth certificate, social security card, she's honest, she's honest.
She tells Jezebel.
She then told him to go ahead and take a photograph and pose with it, since he'd already taken the first one.
I was feeling wrong-footed, she said, and like I needed to be admitting to something.
What a complete... Where's the empowerment?
Where's the strength that feminism has given these women?
I mean, a girl in the 50s would have just told this jerk to take a hike.
So Lisa, Nina's roommate, says she came home at around 2 a.m.
She walked in. She saw Smith guiding Nina into her bedroom with his hand on her arm.
She was alarmed, she says, Lisa, the roommate, but didn't want to overreact.
So she and her boyfriend stayed in the living room for about an hour, quote, quietly on her phones, keeping our ears perked.
If you're alarmed, you go in and you say, is everything okay?
What's been happening? How's your evening been?
Why are you crying? What's the matter?
Why is all this government paperwork out?
What are you doing? Everybody's so tender and fragile and sensitive and not there.
So they stayed in the living room, she and her boyfriend, the roommate and her boyfriend, for about an hour.
In that time, she says, she heard Nina sobbing and heard Smith say the words, suicide and selfish.
Nina, the woman with the date, tells Jezebel she made and recovered from a suicide attempt last year, and that she remembers Smith essentially saying that, quote, He considered the suicide attempt selfish, or like I was just trying to get attention.
I was not good at that point.
I just felt embarrassed and like this was a situation I had caused by being dishonest or obfuscating, said Nina.
My gosh. She made and recovered from a suicide attempt last year.
So don't date her.
Like, this is terrible.
So if she had a bad childhood, I'm going to just go out on a limb and assume.
So how has these progressive politics...
How has it strengthened her?
How has it given her power?
She can't even get a verbally abusive guy out of her apartment.
Just curling up on a couch and sobbing and all that, right?
So this continued. I guess this verbal abuse continued for more than two hours.
Nina says, by which time she was crying to the point that her face swelled, but did not ask Smith to leave because she, quote, felt guilty and like I messed up and I should be trying to get his forgiveness.
Horrendous. Now, so people, if they grow up in, I don't know about this woman, but in general, if people grow up without a strong bond with their parents, without security, without a sense of connection and love and safety...
Then they're needy, right?
They're nervous. They're anxious about the world because they don't have a safe space to land.
And if they're nervous about the world, rather than deal with their own family history, they will rather make up demons within the world.
They will rather make up demons within the world.
So to take an example, an extreme example, obviously, Adolf Hitler as a child was beaten to the point where he ended up in a coma, right?
So the real danger was coming from his house, but then of course he thought that the danger was coming from elsewhere as he became an adult.
You either deal with your family history directly or you end up projecting your family history and it continues, right?
So if you grew up without a sense of security, if you grew up being abused or belittled or whatever, and I can't imagine this is the first time this has happened in her life.
So if you grow up being abused, then you either deal with that abuse and you ascribe the moral guilt to the people who deserve it, in other words, your abuser, when you were a child, or what happens is you project that sense of insecurity onto the world, and then you see, you know, white privilege, and then you see patriarchy, and you see all of this And then you end up with that perpetual anxiety that weakens you rather than strengthens you.
In other words, if you don't deal with your childhood, you project it onto the world and it continues forever.
You never get to escape your childhood unless you actually deal with it and put the moral blame where it should be, which is the people who abused you as a child, usually your parents.
So as she continued crying, though, and continued to answer Smith's personal questions about her family and attempt to take her own life, his demeanor changed yet again.
She says, he gradually started comforting me as I'm crying.
He's sort of rolling his eyes like, all right, okay, come here.
She says, I'm still apologizing, apologizing.
I asked him if he could hug me for a while.
And then he started making comments like, you know, I could potentially forgive you.
We could potentially get through this.
Okay, so the transactional analysis, in my obviously amateur view, would go something like this.
So, he wants to dominate her, and then what happens when she says, she exercises control and calls him a car at the end of the date, he feels humiliated, right?
This is called leveling up, right? So he feels humiliated because she's rejected him.
So, once he is humiliated and he feels that she is rejecting him, which she is, then he needs to level up.
In other words, he now needs to humiliate her in return because she humiliated him.
So he inveigles his way into her apartment and then he grinds her down to the point where she's just broken.
She's just smashed up.
And then he can be kind of kind to her Because they've leveled up.
So she humiliated him.
He humiliated her. When she's broken, he can then be kind of nice because he enjoys humiliating her.
I assume that's why he does it for so long.
And so if the victim is begging you for hugs, right, that's a horrible situation.
That's a humiliating, horrible situation.
This is literally a window into hell itself.
So if your victim, the person you've been verbally berating for hours, is begging you for a hug, Then that would please your cruel nature and you'd want to keep it around, right?
So then Smith begins kissing her and she was still crying off and on.
She says she told him to stop so that she could cry more and that he did so for a time before he began trying again.
Eventually, Nina says, the tenor of the encounter changed.
He began taking off her and his own clothes and to initiate sex, which Nina said, quote, felt like maybe he was offering some kind of forgiveness.
You see the passive voice here, the tenor of the encounter changed.
Like there's just some third party.
She was still upset. She said she didn't want to have sex, but didn't say no because she felt she had something to make up for.
I'm so sorry. Whatever happened in your life that put you in this mindset, I'm so sorry for all of that.
She panicked, she says, and told him to get a condom from a drawer.
She says she froze up, end quote, but told him to be rougher, quote, because I just wanted to build distance from myself during it.
She now describes what happened as coercive sex.
What a nightmare. What a complete nightmare.
She doesn't want to have sex with him.
She's so disgusted she wants to rip her skin off.
And then she tells him to be rougher in the sexual encounter because she wants to dissociate.
God. Well, there's no God there.
Smith Central text messages the next day.
June 7th began. Hey, last night was fun.
You know, considering. See, again, this is the it was fun and then...
She wrote back and said, I feel like a horrible person and want to die.
Oh my gosh.
Not what a lady should be feeling after a date.
I feel like a horrible person and want to die.
And then he wrote back, Ha ha!
Do you? I thought it was pretty constructive.
No? Night certainly ended well.
Was I too unkind?
I feel like a horrible person and want to die.
Ha ha, do you?
That's stone cold, man.
So she writes back, I don't know if you were too unkind or if I'm just a baby, but it's props the latter.
And again, so she's taking the ownership, taking the blame and so on, right?
And then he says, all right, well, hopefully you still think I'm all right now, that it's the next day and light out and everything.
He wrote, hit me up soon and let me know where things stand once you know how you're feeling.
Feelin'. It's just all so colloquial.
Feelin'. A little apostrophe.
All right. And this is horrifying.
Yeah, in England and Wales, coercive control became a crime in 2015.
Domestic abuse laws protecting, quote, victims who experience the type of behavior that stops short of serious physical violence but amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse.
Crazy.
So, let's have a look at another.
So, in the case of Jack Smith, right, this guy, the first known public allegations against him were not whispered and were not the result of hashtag MeToo.
Kind of funny like an hashtag, but anyway.
They came in the form of the aforementioned series of tweets by Erica Kay, a podcaster and writer.
She began a Twitter thread alleging abuse and gaslighting.
In a later thread, dated March 4th, 2018, Kay wrote, quote, that feeling when your abuser's journalism career is flourishing and literally nobody cares.
Jack Smith, 4th of Mike.com, what's good?
See again, high status guy, high status guy.
So, Kay...
Tells Jess Bush she dated Smith in 2014 when they were both students at Montclair State University.
They broke up that same year but continued having a sexual relationship for roughly three years afterwards.
Oh my god. Oh my god.
You know that phrase broke up?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Continued having a sexual relationship for roughly three years afterwards.
Hey, roughly. She says that their interactions consisted primarily of forceful sex, which she now identifies as coercive.
So, I guess this woman, I'm going to go out on a limb, say she's a feminist, and she's turned on by forceful sex.
Ah! She's turned on by rough sex and she's a feminist.
Again, assuming that she's a feminist, which is a pretty safe assumption.
Because she dated this guy who's very much pro-feminist and she's talking to Jezebel and all that kind of stuff, right?
She now identifies this forceful sex as coercive and that he employed tactics of control and manipulation, including an unwillingness to have sex with her unless she wore a specific eye makeup.
She tells Jezebel, I would be forced to put that makeup on before anything happened between us.
Okay, that's a kink I've not heard of before, and I've heard of a few doing a live call-in show for 12 years.
So he won't have sex with her unless she wore a specific eye makeup.
Now, you get it. It's nothing about the eye makeup.
It's about do what I tell you to, and then I'll have sex with you, right?
He would assume can't have sex with a person who's psychologically there, for therefore he's got to tell her to do something, and then if she does it, she's not there.
Anyway. She says, I would realize a day later, oh no, I was not consenting to that, because you've consented to being in a relationship with this person, you say that you love them, you try to do things to make the relationship better, and then this happens to you!
It goes back to this whole thing where it's legally hard to believe women.
Okay, so I'm a little confused about all of this.
They broke up, continued having a sexual relationship for roughly three years afterwards.
So they're having a sexual relationship, but they're not boyfriend and girlfriend.
And then she says, I was not, you're consented to being You say that you love them. But you're not in a relationship, as far as I understand it, because you said you broke up and you're just getting there together for rough trade, right?
So... I don't understand.
Then this happens to you.
And this, again, is the kind of agency...
a lack of agency language that is really damaging to people's thoughts.
This happens to you.
Oh! You just...
It just happened. You didn't make any choices.
You didn't choose to stay with this guy.
You didn't choose to have sex with him.
You didn't choose to succumb to his manipulations.
You didn't choose to not push back.
Stuff just happens to you.
Very, very dangerous.
Very dangerous. Alright, so...
There's a bunch of tweets there.
there.
You can look at those yourself.
So, later in this exchange, he accused her of having spent years threatening and harassing him and that he'd blocked her on social media.
And this is monstrous.
Now, maybe other people can tell me what this means.
Kay's telling shows the nuance of relationships such as these, and she explicates the complexity with which she related to Smith, which was often wanting to be with him at the same time as feeling manipulated and harmed.
On an episode of her podcast, she described Smith as having dick to bomb.
Asked to explain her comment, she says, quote, not every time was coercion, and I obviously wouldn't have stayed with him if literally every time I didn't want to have sex with him at all.
That dick to bomb statement was mostly me playing it off to be lighthearted on a podcast that's mostly about comedy.
I don't know. Dick to bomb?
Does that mean he's just really, really good in bed?
I don't know.
I don't know. So then, other women began reaching out.
One of these is pseudonym Judith.
Judith says she began seeing Smith in 2012 and now refers to him as her abuser.
Quote, she says, quote,"...he pulled me into this world that was all about him and his desires and fulfilling those desires and found ways to subtly punish me if things weren't to his liking.
There were these emotional games that made me question myself and question my sanity." After college, she stayed friendly, this woman with Smith, on social media and occasionally in person, including accepting an invitation to see the Mike offices in January 2017.
Because even though in the past he had, quote, pushed my boundaries, she felt it was, quote, safer to not alienate him.
Safer to not alienate him.
Because in their world of journalism and leftism and moral pomposity and telling everyone what's right and what's good and what's moral and what's virtuous and attacking their enemies and all that, In this world, this guy is powerful.
And so the women are like, well, I don't want him to get mad at me because it might harm my career.
It's what my assumption is, right?
After a question about when her interactions with Smith shifted from him displaying typical bad boyfriend behavior to a point where she began to fear him, she says this.
So this is interesting.
Typical bad boyfriend behavior.
So this is important to understand.
When people are talking about men, the patriarchy, masculinity, toxic masculinity, you understand they're not talking about men as a whole.
They're talking about the men they know.
They're talking about The men their mothers chose to be their fathers, whether present or not.
They're talking about the men in their social circle.
They're talking about the boyfriends that they've dated.
They're not talking about men in the abstract.
They're talking about the men they know.
Typical bad boyfriend behavior.
What does that mean?
Typical bad boyfriend behavior.
In this world, all the boyfriends are bad?
Well, they're leftists, right?
So, yeah. Anyway, I just think that's very interesting.
So, she says... Over the last year, I've had to admit a lot of things to myself in the context of the hashtag MeToo movement.
I realized that every time I saw him, I would have a physical reaction.
My heart would start racing.
I would have a tightness in my chest.
He would all surprise me, like he would show up like it was a jump scare in a horror movie.
He would say things to get under my skin.
He would either be very cold and act like we didn't know each other, or he would act very familiar with me.
I was always afraid of him at some level because I justified not cutting him out of my life because I kept thinking, we're in the same field, or I'm trying to be, and I'm not trying to make enemies for myself.
I know that he could easily poison the well.
There is no evidence that Smith ever tried to poison the well, but his fairly prominent position in media circles was nonetheless a deterrent to Judith speaking out.
Right. So one of the reasons that I think some of these women would have slept with him was in the hopes of gaining advantage in the professional field.
And then, of course, one of the reasons they didn't speak out against him was they feared after pursuing that advantage, there may be a disadvantage to them.
Jenny first met Smith in 2014.
He was hired as a tech reporter at The Observer.
She's also a reporter.
They knew each other professionally.
2016, she'd broken up with a boyfriend of three years and, unrelatedly, began seeing Smith more often on a friendly basis.
Yeah, it's just unrelated.
Because, you know, women never break up with guys in the hopes of monkey branching to a more powerful guy.
Never happens. Never happened in the history of the universe.
Well, of course, if it had never happened, we wouldn't have civilization.
So this woman, Jenny, tells Jezebel one night in September, they, she and Jack, got, quote, extremely stoned And Smith began talking about, quote, other women reporters he slept with.
While high, she says, they eventually ended up sitting on his bed, but she was not interested in having sex with him.
She says, I could tell he was trying to make it happen, so I physically turned around and faced the wall.
he started leaning over me and being like you know you want to and stuff like that I I don't know I mean I don't want to make light of the situation because it's a horrible situation Thank you.
But, you know, if you're, let's say you go to a car dealership, you're interested in buying a car, and the guy's trying to sell you on buying a car, you know, can we sign the papers?
Can I draw this up for you? Let's make this happen.
Let's close the deal. Can you imagine that your response is to just turn around and face the wall?
I'm like, isn't that strange?
Hey Steph, you want to go on a date with me?
No, I'm just gonna...
I'm just gonna turn around and face the wall.
That's strange. Again, she's stoned, right?
Not just stoned, but extremely stoned, right?
So, taking a lot of drugs, ending up sitting on a bed, and so on, right?
So, she says she told Smith she wanted to leave and turned around, after which he started kissing her, stuck his hand down her pants, and said, according to a text Jenny sent the next day, do you still want to leave?
That's a terrible game, and it's a horrible game, and it's a horrible person.
Anyway, so she told Smith she wanted to leave.
Again, I'm...
You know, this is sort of back in the day.
This was a moment that I remember very clearly from theater school.
I went to the National Theater School in Montreal for a couple of years.
And the actors sometimes, and I was studying playwriting, but I did the first year in acting, doing the acting.
And anyway, so people would try and force these emotions, right?
And I remember the acting teachers, a very good moment.
So he said, stop forcing it.
And people didn't really understand, right?
Stop forcing the emotion. It's tense.
It makes the audience tense. And so he said, okay, have an exercise.
Here's a chair. I want you to really try to sit down in that chair.
And so, you know, people would pretend there was like, I don't know, anti-gravity or like you try to sit down in the chair.
And then he'd say, sit down in the chair.
People would just sit down in the chair, right?
See? If the feelings aren't there, it means you haven't done your preparation.
So don't strain, don't try, right?
There is no try. Just do, right?
If you haven't prepared. You know, if you...
When I was doing my master's, I had to learn how to translate French.
So I went to a lot of French classes and all that.
Now, if I hadn't gone to the French classes and been able to translate French, then I would have had the test to translate French, and I would have concentrated hard, but I hadn't done the preparation, therefore it wouldn't be ready, right?
And it's the same thing, if you haven't done the preparation for the emotional accessibility as an actor, if you've done the preparation before, whatever method you use, Stanislavski or whatever, then just forcing it in the moment is a way of trying to recover from the cheat of not having done the work ahead of time.
So this struck me, right?
She told him she wants to leave.
So maybe I'm missing something, but don't you just get up and go?
I mean, why would you say you want to leave and then he starts kissing?
Like, you get up and you leave.
You don't try to leave.
You don't express your intention.
So, Jenny says that she then, quote, just let it happen, end quote, because still stoned, she, quote, wasn't really in a frame of mind to make a thing out of this.
Smith then, quote, pressured, end quote, her into sex in a way that made her uncomfortable, she says, and penetrated her without a condom or asking if it was okay.
Hell.
They had sex twice again, later that night and in the morning, both of which were consensual.
Thank you.
Thank you.
During the morning encounter, however, he choked her without her consent.
She says he, quote, wrapped his bicep around my neck and restricted my breathing.
During the choking, Jenny says she asked Smith, what are you doing, and that he ignored her.
What do you mean, what are you doing?
You elbow him wherever you need to, and you get the hell out of chokey guy's place.
During the choking, sorry, let's go past the choking if we can.
A week later, she says she confronted him in person about their interaction, reiterating that she had initially tried to leave and that his pressuring her had made her uncomfortable.
He responded, she says, that he didn't remember any of that, but that her description of the night's events didn't sound good.
Strange.
Again, it's a nightmare existence.
Absolute nightmare existence. And this is what happens when you pervert sexual pleasure and displace personal value.
This is animalistic.
So, the conversation they had, what was it, a week later, about this...
I mean, at this time, I didn't really want to have sex.
I wasn't really into him, so we only had sex three times in the span of 12 hours.
Holy demon rabbit.
Anyway... So the conversation they had about unwanted sex, the choking and so on, the conversation was terse and they parted ways.
Again, I find this stuff incomprehensible.
Genuinely, I'm terrified for the next generation, or at least the leftists, right?
The conversation, Jenny says, was terse and they parted ways.
She'd say, wow, that's done, you know?
He had sex with her, she didn't really want it, he choked her, and...
They had a tense and terse conversation.
And they part ways.
Woo! That's done deep in the rear view.
Except it's not. For several months afterward, though, she continued having a consensual sexual relationship with him, during which she describes his behavior as pervasively manipulative and undermining.
Stop rewarding terrible men with sex!
Stop rewarding terrible men with sex!
You are undoing the foundations and the fabric of the civilization that keeps you safe.
Stop it. You can't complain about a man's behavior if you reward him with sex because sex is the ultimate reward.
Whatever you fire the V cannon at gets bigger, stronger, and more powerful.
So if he is choking you, if he is grabbing at you, if he's, as you say, pervasively manipulative and undermining, you can't complain about any of it if you keep having sex with him because sex is the ultimate, and in some ways biologically, the only reward.
If you're giving the highest reward, To a certain behavior, then complaining about that behavior makes no sense whatsoever.
It's like me saying, as a business owner, I don't understand it.
Employee X keeps filling out these forms incorrectly.
Now, it is true that I give him a million dollars every time he fills these forms out incorrectly, but I'm still going to complain about him filling out these forms incorrectly.
If you're giving a man the highest possible reward when he engages in particular behavior, then complaining about that behavior makes no sense.
And I can't understand how people don't know this.
Sex is the highest reward.
If you give a man sex, are there no nice guys around?
A friend of mine sent me a Picture the other day.
Effectiveness of forms of birth control, right?
So, like, condom was like 90%.
The pill, 99%.
Being a nice guy, 100%.
All right.
In April 2017, she says, she told him that she no longer wanted to interact with him because of his relationship with a girlfriend in Toronto.
So, she's the side piece here.
Ugh, how terrible.
How terrible.
He was sometimes, this is a bit of a misquote here, but she said, he was sometimes emotionally detached, sometimes involved, and I got tired of the fact that he was obviously withholding things from me.
She did continue occasionally reaching out to him over text.
Later, she says she stopped speaking to him for a time because when she saw him in public, she would have panic attacks.
Well, of course, right?
I ended up being very depressed that I allowed someone to treat me this way, she says, and that coalesced into shame.
Yeah, of course, right?
Now, here's the thing.
So Becca Shue, also a writer, first told Jenny she was interested in Smith around September 2017.
Both Jenny and Shue confirmed that Jenny immediately told her not to date him.
Not, do not date him.
But Shu decided to continue the relationship despite Jenny's warnings.
So even when women are saying, don't date him, don't date him, don't date him, she's like, I'm gonna date him!
Oh god. What's the matter with everyone?
Okay. Okay, this is not everyone.
I have to remind myself that it's not everyone.
No, it's... Shu was clear with Jezebel, this is Becca Shu, that all their sexual encounters were consensual, but says that he engaged in a month-long process of emotional manipulation.
Well, sure, because he wants to have sex, and emotional manipulation works with these women.
He gets sex, right?
And I'm not trying to strip agency from this guy.
It's terrible what he's doing.
But men want sex, and if women give the sex that he wants, with the eyeshadow that he wants, or the roughness that he wants...
He will continue, in general, like this is amoral stuff, right?
It's just biology, right? Because these people are just operating at the level of biology.
But a man will continue to do whatever gets him sexual access.
And he's not going to change his behavior if he continues to get sexual access.
So this guy's screwing his way around the entire environment here, right?
This sort of leftist journalistic environment here.
And so, given that he gets his rocks off in the way that he wants, for these women to complain about his behavior when they're giving him sexual access, again, I... What's missing?
Like, help me understand, people.
Give me something in the comments below.
How on earth do you expect a man to change his behavior if you keep rewarding him with sex?
It's the ultimate reward.
Anyway. So this Becca Shue says, I think that he has a pattern with women where he is able to figure out the thing that they are most sensitive and vulnerable about.
For me... That is, that not only have I never been in a serious relationship, but just that I've never had, like, consistent trustworthy affection that I don't know whether it's going to turn on and off at any moment.
Right, so that's childhood, that's a lack of bonding, that's being manipulated by, I assume, a parent or a caregiver and so on.
So yeah, he knows that about her, and he also knows that she'll give him sex if he pushes that wound, I assume.
So then she says, I think that he gave that to me for a month on purpose, and then only gave it back intermittently, like it was a game.
After he groomed this part of me that is the most sensitive, the most scared, it felt like he then spent the next six months poking it to fuck with me for fun.
Poking and fucking. Well, it works, right?
So, she wrote to him once a text, I guess.
This is what she gave to Jezebel.
She said, I don't think you've been emotionally abusive to me per se, but the past couple weeks there has been an influx of information to me from several sources that have been concerning on multiple levels.
So, yeah, she says, I was into him for a very long time and took me a really long time to contextualize the things I had learned about him.
I was at a point where his approval and desire for me was the only thing that mattered.
And I don't know if that's necessarily relevant, but I personally think that relates to the manipulative aspects of everything.
So this guy had things that the women wanted, that they were willing to give up sex for, even if it was unpleasant, even if he was manipulative.
He had status! He had status, the capacity to reward them professionally, or they feared punish them professionally, and so on, right?
Ah... So...
It's just wild.
The sex he takes. So this is feminist philosopher Kate Mann's concept of the sex he takes.
Quote,"...the sex he takes is not, according to the law, rape or sexual assault.
It does not rise to the scrutiny of a judge and jury.
It does not meet the legal definitions of sexual assault or rape.
Its boundaries, shapeless and shifting, treat consent as something to be extracted, transforming sex into a commodity to be taken, rather than freely exchanged." Rarely can that sex be labeled explicitly as coercion because it conceals itself beneath a legalistic definition of sexual assault, treating consent as a binary, as a simple yes or no.
Yeah, well, it is, right?
I mean, again, not to cheapen the vulnerability and power of sexual interactions, but if a salesman pressures me into buying a car...
I don't really get to say, if I say yes and sign on the dotted line and go back and buy a car from that guy for years later, you know, every couple of years I buy a new car from the guy, this goes on for like 10 years, do I then get to say I want all my money back because I didn't actually buy the car?
It kind of does come down to yes or no.
So, it is...
One of the central arguments, and this was the Aziz Ansari story, Keith Ellison accusations, women are muddying the waters, that we are unable to distinguish between violent rape and encounters in which the boundaries of consent are blurred.
The writer says, women do distinguish between these experiences and do not conflate them.
We just would like the tentpoles to be moved permanently towards the expectation of equitable sexual encounters.
But here's the thing, is that if women were sleeping with this guy because of his high status, then they wanted something from him which was either status for themselves or professional advancement.
And so they're using him as an object of status and power, and he's using them as objects of sexuality.
But of course, you'll only focus on him using the women, not on the women using the men, because this can't be really talking about, right?
This can be compounded when some men use progressive politics as a shield from and weapon against being held accountable for the most appalling, hypocritical behavior.
So, Attorney General, I guess former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and so on, an alleged feminist, and there was all of this kind of stuff.
Additionally, survivors of this sort of trauma often blame themselves for their abusers' behavior.
Now, that's a tough one.
That is a tough one.
Survivors of this sort of trauma.
Now, the word survivor is a very, very powerful word.
Now, the woman, like a woman's jogging in Central Park and she's attacked and raped by four men.
So, she's a victim.
She did nothing to bring this on.
She was brutally attacked.
Horrible stuff. She is a survivor.
Voluntarily going to the man's apartment, having sex with him for three times in 12 hours, or...
Having repeated sex with him even after you've broken up?
Or just continuing to contact and date him and so on?
Are you really a survivor in the same way?
I have a tough time putting those two situations in the same conceptual basket again.
Maybe I'm missing something.
But saying survivor...
Ah, when you're dating the guy, when you keep dating him, when you don't go to the cops, when, like, are you a survivor, or are you an enabler, or perhaps even some sort of participant?
I don't know. I don't know.
So Judith, who has known Smith longer than any accused her Jezebel spoke to on the record, feels this type of self-blame acutely.
Quote, I feel honestly sick to my stomach about how complicit I felt over the years by just keeping him in my life, she says.
Quote, that's what abusers do.
They make you feel complicit for surviving, and I understand that on an intellectual level, and I shouldn't feel guilt over that, but I do, and that's why I wanted to come forward.
Well, that's fascinating.
And this sort of window into the minds of progressives, leftists, collectivists, and women in particular, this lack of agency is really, really astonishing.
And this is the downside, the dark side of feminism, is that by saying to women that they're victims, victims, victims, they strip them of agency, and thus it ends up disempowering women rather than empowering them.
See, they make you feel complicit for surviving, right?
Right? So, you repeatedly banged a bad boy because either it turned you on or you wanted something out of the interaction, right?
Now, if it turned you on, and rough sex does turn some people on, so if it turned you on, you're not really a survivor like you were a participant, and if it didn't turn you on, if you didn't like it but you slept with him, Because he had status or because he was...
Rather than deal with some emotional past trauma, you were reproducing it in a current relationship.
They make you feel complicit for surviving.
They make you feel.
How does someone make you feel something?
Because the feelings come from an interpretation.
Feelings aren't like the big buttons, right?
Now, if you don't have self-knowledge, then the buttons are pretty big and broad, so to speak.
But how does someone make you feel something?
I mean, I am subject to the wildest verbal abuse on the internet.
It doesn't make me feel bad about myself because I have no respect for the people making these allegations.
How does it make you feel?
It's a mystery. Smith's perceived hypocrisy that helped her overcome her fear at speaking out, she said.
How can you be this woke feminist progressive person who's the face of this sort of purportedly leftist media organization and treat women the way you do?
It's just unacceptable! Well, and I hope that...
Women will wake up to the biology of men and the, you know, when you don't have philosophy, when you don't have values, when you don't have abstract moral principles, when you're a leftist, you don't have these things.
All you have is identity politics.
You just have, you find all disparities in group outcomes.
You ascribe them to sexism and racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, whatever it is.
You just come up with and you set people against each other.
There's no objective moral standards there.
And so... These collectivists, these leftists, they don't have objective moral standards.
And once you accept that, then you accept they can't really be good people.
They may want to be good people, but they can't.
You know, like if I'm dropped somewhere in the middle of the Florida Everglades, I may want to get to Miami, but that doesn't mean I can.
I may want to, but I'm just going to thrash around, right?
So... So...
Yeah, they start talking about this stuff.
There's the Whisper Network and it becomes...
You know, and it's funny they keep using this term grooming, but the grooming is with children, right?
Like the rape gangs, the child rape gangs, like the ones in England from immigrants, often from Pakistan.
Well, this is grooming. Grooming is for children.
She says, he got me very used.
This is Shu. He got me very used very quickly to a specific type of attention from him and he very quickly gave so much of it to me and very abruptly took it away and only gave it back in tiny doses.
See, now that's interesting because he got me very used very quickly to a specific type of attention from him, right?
But you gave him sex.
And this often will happen with relationships between men and women, which is that the woman will give a lot of sex to the man to get him hooked, and then she will pull back the sex to get what she wants.
So it does happen both ways for sure, and I get that receiving sex is more vulnerable than not getting sex, but nonetheless, there are these kinds of, but he got me used very quickly, so she's like addicted, right?
Addicted to this kind of attention.
And that is a great vulnerability among certain kinds of women, and yes, some people do take advantage of it.
And the way to solve that is to find out why you are so susceptible to this kind of emotional manipulation and figure out whatever it is within you, whatever wound it is that keeps being exploited and deal with that wound, which usually means going back to its original source.
There's a reason why the ring has to be thrown into Mount Doom where it was made and no other place.
So, I don't know.
They came up with the shitty men in media list.
Smith's name was not included on that list.
So, good job, everyone.
So, anyway, the rest of it's a little bit less exciting.
But... Oh, yeah, and then they talk...
Mike provided Jezebel email.
Smith's contract has been terminated.
So, yeah, that's where things are in the world.
It is kind of chilling.
And it is a kind of hell itself.
And I'm not going to do conclusions here because I think I've been dropping the minutes I go, but I'm curious what you guys think about it.
Let me know in the comments below.
I find this stuff really fascinating.
The politics of sexuality is very foundational.
You know, a lot of what goes on in the world is just about sex.
It's just about sex. It's not about highfalutin philosophical concepts and so on.
It's just about orgasms.
And sexual market value is something that people who have low sexual market value will try to inflate it all the time.
And it's foundational to a lot of debates that go on in society, right?
So if you try to eliminate the immorality, injustice, and malevolence, and destructiveness of the welfare state, what happens is the sexual market value of single mothers goes down because now then they don't come with a bunch of government money, right?
So that props up their sexual market value.
So people will fight For that in a lot of ways.
And sexual market value, when you get a lot of immigrants coming into Western countries, you get this concomitant movement where the attractiveness of white women is diminished, right?
The fat positivity movement and weird hair colors and all this kind of stuff.
And so that's because the immigrant women want to compete for resources with men, and so downgrading the attractiveness of the Native women to these countries is a natural strategy, and if you look at this sexual market value stuff, it's all over the place in the world, right? So men voted for Trump because they wanted lower taxes, because when men have more money, their sexual market value goes up.
Single women and single moms voted for Hillary because...
They want to have resources from the government because they don't trust their ability to gain resources from men.
If you look at conservative women, they tend to be very physically attractive, and one of the reasons they are against big government is because big government takes money from the men that they can get, and because they're so attractive and intelligent, they can get very high-quality, wealthy people.
Successful professional men and so they want smaller government because smaller government will then take less money from their family and again the single women want bigger government because they get more money because they don't tend to they don't tend to be that attractive and also they Sorry, there's another thing too. So a lot of people who want government to become bigger will convince women to become less attractive because then they can get less resources from men and therefore they're going to be more reliant upon the government for resources.
So if you look at these sort of sexual politics, they're kind of everywhere in the world.
And boy, if...
If we can't start to own up to the basic facts about all of this kind of stuff, that we either come together out of love and respect and value.
And I'm going to go real traditional here, right?
And say to the women out there, and again, let me know what you think in the comments below.
Let's assume that you want to have kids, right?
So we're just going to go with traditional setup, right?
Man is making the money and the woman is raising the kids running the household.
Okay. So, your ability to have sex, your ability to give up the V... It's not foundational to your quality as a mother and as a companion and as a homemaker and all this kind of stuff, right?
It's just not. It doesn't really matter that much.
So, if you are a woman and you want to have a man take care of the finances, make the money and so on, then you need to bring real personal qualities and virtues to the interaction, to the dating world, right? So if you want more money for your family, you better be a good cook.
Because if you can't cook, then the man's going to have to order food in all the time, which costs money.
So you become very expensive, right?
So you better know how to cook. Do you know how to clean?
Because if you don't know how to clean, then you're going to have to hire maids who aren't going to come in often enough.
And also... If you don't know how to clean, your kids are going to get sick more often.
You're going to get sick more often, which distracts a man from his capacity to make money and so on.
So are you going to be able to clean?
Are you going to be able to take chores off the man?
You're going to run the household. You're going to run the finance.
You're going to run the banking. You're going to do the taxes.
You're going to have a good head with numbers and a good head to manage resources and so on.
Because if you are able to do those things, then the man can focus more on his career.
And, you know, a man being supported by a woman can make more, I believe, on average than two people working.
Right? So understand this.
If the man is being professionally supported by the woman, she's focusing on helping him to get his advancement going in a professional sphere, and she's taken off all of the busy work that characterizes modern life, then he can really focus on his career.
And is it a stress-free household?
Because if he's going to make a lot of money, he's going to be stressful at work.
Is it a stress-free household for him?
Are the kids happy?
Is... Are conflicts minimized?
Is it a tidy, clean environment?
Can he find things? Is stuff working?
He just needs that kind of secure environment so that he has a stable base from which to launch his career rocket-like to the stratosphere of money earning.
And this is sort of what I'm talking about.
These women just come out and it's like, well, I'm neurotic and I'll have sex with you.
It's like, okay, so the man might get his rocks off, but that's not a foundation to build a family on.
Can you imagine these women trying to run a household, trying to support a man, trying to raise kids, trying to juggle all of that stuff?
It's a big and busy and difficult and detailed job.
And so just saying, well, you know, poke A fits into slot B, that's nothing to do with any of this sort of foundational family values, right?
This is the question. If you're a woman who want to have kids, what do you bring into the table?
