In my article The feminist #metoo circle jerk on the Harvey Weinstein accusations for sexual misconduct, I pointed out that those women willingly accepted a quid pro quo, meaning that they traded sexual favors for movie roles and other opportunities. Yet, now that those women are well past their prime, good ol’ Harvey is suddenly worse than Hitler, or something like that. Feminist reasoning really is quite peculiar. If there was an issue with sexual misconduct, then why the hell wasn’t that brought to the attention of the public, or the police, in 1997 instead of 2017? The obvious conclusion is that those women clearly knew what they were doing: “Which hole, Mr Weinstein? Of course, Mr Weistein!”
This brings me to an article recently posted by leftist rag The Guardian, in which a confused female reader asks, “Should I report sexual harassment if I then slept with the man?”. That is the headline of the article, which tells you everything you need to know, i.e. that said female reader has more than a few screws loose. The subtitle is, “A reader wonders whether she should call out a senior staff member who pestered her inappropriately before they had a relationship”.
Yes, I had to take a deep breath as well when I read that.
I couldn’t even read the entire article without cringing. Here is a highlight, though, before I start bashing both the woman writing to leftist rag The Guardian and the woman responding to her:
In your case, whether you later had a relationship with this man, or used his reference, doesn’t condone his initial transgression, but it suggests enough ambiguity to make it worth examining your motives in coming forward.
Ambiguity? Ambiguity!? I must be dreaming. There is no ambiguity because the female reader who lusts for a few minutes of fame has no reason to claim sexual harassment. Let’s go through this one by one:
1) A guy hits on a woman. That is what guys have to do because women will never ever approach you. Fat, ugly, and old women don’t count.
2) After some back and forth, said woman submits to the man and willingly takes his dick.
I don’t even want to write about the fact that she fucked a superior at work and traded sex for a favorable letter of recommendation. This is Harvey Weinstein light. Attractive actresses get to bang Hollywood moguls. Average looking women who don’t get by on their looks try to trade pussy for a little bit of professional success in their chosen succession. In the abstract, those two situations are identical. If you don’t grasp this then, quite frankly, you are fucking stupid, or a feminist. However, the set of stupid people is a superset of the set of feminists, so there is no real difference for the point of the argument.
Let’s get back to the issue of sexual advances. Yes, dear horny reader with the massive cock, you, too, have to approach women if you want to get laid for free (spend a few bucks on my fantastic book Minimal Game, if you haven’t bought it yet, though). You’ll probably creep out a few chicks along the way, but that is par for the course. If you are smooth, there is essentially a zero chance that you will ever be accused of sexual harassment. Just focus on young and mentally healthy women, or leave the Western world, and that won’t be much of a worry for you.
However, her approval of you making a move on her implies compliance. A girl can’t spend months fucking you and swallow a gallon of your cum in the process and later on turn around and claim that she has gotten sexually harassed. The only logically consistent way out for a feminist with a feeble mind is to claim that women are unable to make a decision and turn down men. As you guys know, that is not what is happening in the real world. Women don’t fuck you out of pity and they most certainly don’t validate sexual harassment by having sex with the supposed harasser. How harassed could she have felt if she willingly had sex afterwards? Clearly, if she had sex with a guy, she could not have been harassed.
This is a prime example of a modus tollens, by the way, so let me teach you a bit of formal logic, even though it will make some of you stop reading this article. The pattern is as follows:
1) If A then B
2) Not B
3) (Conclusion:) Not A
This means you can refute 1) if you are able to find 2).
Let’s replace A and B to make it more fun. Set A to “Suzy has gotten sexually harassed by Matt” and B to “Suzy does not fuck Matt”. You look at this and already see that there is an issue. The only way out is to claim that sexual harassment is no big deal and not relevant to the question of whether a woman fucks you or not, but this would be colossally stupid as it would trivialize sexual harassment to the point that it means nothing anymore, which, frankly, is what feminists have unwillingly been working towards.
But onward, junior logicians! We now have:
1) If “Suzy has gotten sexually harassed by Matt” then “Suzy does not fuck Matt”
2) Not “Suzy does not fuck Matt”
3) (Conclusion:) Not “Suzy has gotten sexually harassed by Matt”
In plain English, this means:
2) Suzy fucks Matt
3) Suzy has not gotten sexually harassed by Matt
You learn logical reasoning like this within the first few days of a proper degree program, if you’re not motivated enough to study logic on your own. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing. Among others, it allows us to program computers. On that note, are there any feminists who can do even just a little bit of programming? No, I don’t think so either, and the reason is that they can’t figure out simple if/then reasoning and have no idea of what it means for a set of statements to be internally consistent. Otherwise, they wouldn’t come up with bullshit such as claiming that you can change after the fact, even decades later, whether something constituted sexual harassment or not. Oh, I just realized that you don’t even have to go all the way to logic to show that feminists are too fucking dumb for that. In a mathematical proof, for instance, you assign values to variables and once you have done that, you don’t get to change it. Once you write down “let x = 1”, the value of x has been set and that’s it. This shows that feminists won’t get far in mathematics either.
Did you like this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my books or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.