An article about the ridiculous #MeToo movement is not just a case study in the duplicitous and exploitative behavior of women, but is also a somewhat frightening examination of what not to do as a man if you find yourself a target of the #MeToo mob.

Tucker wrote that while making out in bed with Kaiman, she had a change of heart, so she stood up and said she didn’t want to continue. She wrote, “He lay on the bed, not moving, watching me. I remember that he sort of smiled and seemed to pout.” As they talked and she repeated that she didn’t want to have sex, she wrote, “he began to whine,” which made her feel “like it was too late to back out.”

In Kaiman’s telling, he was startled by Tucker’s sudden U-turn and tried verbally to re-establish their previous playful mood. While they talked, he stayed where he was; he didn’t want to make any physical move toward her. He says that after a brief conversation he concluded the night was coming to an end and that he should leave, so he sat up with the intention of getting dressed.

She described what happened next: “I am still so upset that I concluded the easiest, least confrontational way forward was to place male satisfaction above my own desires and to go back to bed.” The sex made her feel “gross,” she wrote, and Kaiman left immediately afterward. His recollection is that she was a full participant and that he stayed the night. When he went to kiss her goodbye the next morning, he says, he was surprised that she seemed distant and upset.

This is what used to be known as a charity fuck, a situation where it would be more socially difficult to not have sex with a person. I have performed a few of these in my time; the motivation being to allow the woman in question to keep hold of her self worth. A lot of women do not handle rejection very well at all. But as it turns out, even more women cannot handle performing charity fucks.

The encounter laid out in the example is one where the woman had buyer’s remorse before the deal had been completed. She had discovered that her sexual choice was something of a beta and she had attempted to back out. Because the social dynamic was very awkward she had decided to press on so as to not have further emotional aggravation.

A woman will do just about anything for a man that she perceives as alpha, but the very small morsels for which the betas beg only elicit revulsion.

After he left, she stewed about what had happened. She was angry with both herself and him, and she wrote an email to tell him so. He felt “gutted” by her reaction, immediately apologized, and suggested they get together to talk it out.

What’s rule number one? Oh yeah; never ever apologize. An apology is an admission of guilt. Why else would you apologize? And if you are guilty then you are prime material for a #MeToo colonoscopy. The man who had his life destroyed, Jonathan Kaiman, apologized abjectly in every other example given as well. The more that you apologize, the more that women despise you. This is the number one takeaway from this entire sorry mess; don’t say sorry. Instead say something like, “You loved it, baby, you’re just upset because I made you clean the sheets.”

The female accuser posted about this sexual encounter five years after the fact on Medium. So why make this innocuous sexual encounter public in such a manner so long after the dirty deed was done?

Tucker provided both a societal and a personal explanation. She wrote that in the wake of #MeToo, she wanted to “add my voice to the broader outcry against sexual misconduct.”

She didn’t want to miss out, in other words. She wanted to get her own emotional dopamine hit wrapped up in the turbo-missile package that is worldwide online attention on the victim hood hit parade. #MeToo would be far more accurate if it were called, #LookatMe!

She also said she had come to realize that “what happened was not my fault…and I do not share the blame. This was Jon’s fault.”

No woman should ever be made to feel responsible for her own decisions. That this is somewhat incoherently inconsistent with the repeated claims by feminism that all women everywhere are strong and independent does not matter. If there is one thing that the prog left are consistent about it is their inconsistency. But if we take this at face value, if we assume that women do indeed have no agency in their own decisions when it comes to sexual matters, then the logical conclusion is that hardcore Muslim nations have it entirely correct as regards to their attitudes towards their own women. If you can’t be trusted to make these types of decisions then it might have to be a return to chaperones and chastity belts.

What happened to Kaiman cannot be dismissed as a singular case of #MeToo excess. A growing number of men have seen their lives damaged after unfair, even questionable allegations—with some accusers expressing the goal of pushing the boundaries of #MeToo. For example, Mic writer Jack Smith IV was the subject of a lengthy investigation published last September in Jezebel, which exhaustively documented that Smith had been a lousy boyfriend to several women.

The game moves on. Being a “lousy boyfriend” now constitutes unacceptable male behavior punishable by the complete destruction of your personal and professional life. We’ve sure come a long way in a very short time from the degrading but still voluntary environment of the casting couch. Almost every adult man alive could easily be accused of being a lousy boyfriend, even though I am unaware of any jurisprudence on the matter. The obvious question is who gets to define what lousy means? The answer will probably be something along the lines of whenever a woman decides it. They want to move us to a point where women are entirely in control of men’s behavior. They’re the schoolmarms and we’re the naughty kiddies in the sandpit.

The writer of the article that I linked to was a supporter of the early #MeToo movement but is now worried that it is going too far. This only reveals her abject stupidity; of course the movement was going to go too far as it grew organically which meant that there were never any boundaries to begin with. The prog left always goes too far; it is a feature of the system, not a bug. How far can it go?

https://twitter.com/LisaBritton/status/1166726644611944453?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1166823679331917824&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fspawnyspace.wordpress.com%2F2019%2F08%2F26%2Fenforcing-the-evil-patriarchy%2F

Children watch and learn, and they assimilate. What can be done about it, she asks.

Men need to change their behavior. This is the only acceptable solution because it keeps the power in our own hands. If you’re just going to sit around and hope that women collectively wake up then you’ve never witnessed a woman on a power trip, and this is very much bigger than that. No, we have to change our behavior and here’s what we have to do:

No hooking up.

Reading the tawdry description of Jonathan Kaiman’s bumbling sexual encounters, I was reminded just how pointless and lonely that whole enterprise must have been for him. There is no doubt that it was not worth it, but even if the #MeToo bandwagon hadn’t swept into town it still wouldn’t have been worth the brief sexual release. If women are determined to make meaningless sexual encounters radioactive then men have to position themselves accordingly. So either you need to be an out and out cad who cares naught for their feelings and will never back down, apologize, or resign, or you need to become a monk who only has sex with the woman that he marries. This is difficult enough as the prog left have done their very best to poison the marriage bed as well.

See what they’re doing? The left are determined to destroy heterosexual relationships, whether they be long term or short term. This goes hand in hand with the promotion and normalization of homosexuality in all its forms. For example:

Women are increasingly opting out of heterosexuality because it is “the bedrock of their global oppression,” NBC News asserted in a bizarre opinion piece this week.
“Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women,” writes Marcie Bianco for the NBC News website. “Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”

If you scare off every man alive then you’ll leave the sisters with not many choices left. How fortunate that the homosexual industry will be there to receive them with open hairy arms.

What’s the whole point of this lunacy? The prog left don’t like people, other people to be really specific. You clog up their motorways with your cars. You clog up their airports with your presence. You clog up their national parks which they want to experience in blessed isolation from you. They’re not allowed to kill you, and even if they were that’s still a pain in the butt to organise. No, better to breed you out of existence. Only the chosen few will be allowed to breed in the future; for the rest of humanity it will be a crime. Heterosexual relations will be a crime as well. Most probably they will mandate government selection of life partners for the masses, of which it will be boys with boys and girls with girls. Mao’s China did this for a few decades but not even they could come up with the homosexual aspect.

Think I’m crazy? Just look around you. Just look at what’s happening. Everything has an end game.