Grace Lavery / Joseph Lavery & Daniel M. Lavery / Mallory Ortberg - "Straight with extra steps" couple trooning out to avoid "dwindling into mere heterosexuality"

[cherrysour]

Oh, and hey, Joe? (He reads this, obv.) I don't think you're stupid. I think you're a bullshit artist who's devoted his entire professional life to the justification of his boner du jour, but I don't think you're unintelligent.

 

[Help Me Move This Table]

Fredo-tier cope. “I’m smart and I want respect!”

 

[Cnaiur urs Skiotha]

I've been looking through Joe's "poetry" that he moved from subscriber-only Substack to his website. The poems are garbage, predictably; a lot of the content consists of Joe recounting his dreams so it's not even lolcow milk, just total nonsense. However, there are some bits of reality, or at least reality according to Joe.

"how i came to buy a new coat" posted on December 22, 2021 (https://archive.md/BsLJQ)

So...is Joe blowing all his cash the second he gets it, and essentially living paycheck to paycheck? This could be some kind of weird poetic (??) device, but I don't think it is. And it totally tracks.

Incidentally, the coat is this one from Loewe, $3,800.
View attachment 2945645

Wow, doesn't it look so "luxe and expensive" covered with dog hair on a fugly troon?
View attachment 2945646View attachment 2945647
At least Joe took the dogs out for once!

Using "tbh" or any other internet/text message abbreviations in a poem is a fucking hate crime.

And just in general, god damn how the fuck does Joe think looking like somebody's unmarried Jewish aunt and wearing designer clothes that cost thousands of dollars and look objectively bad, makes him soooooo fucking cool? What the fuck is wrong with New York City honestly. In almost every city except NYC and LA paying that much for clothes is embarrassing. Among people who are actually young and cool and progressive, all the things Joe desperately tries to self-identify into, it is not cool to be rich. And it's definitely not cool to blow your money on these goofy-ass clothes my dude. Always wearing huge sunglasses to hide the bags under his eyes, presumably because they don't say Gucchi.

 

[Prescription Bugs]

View attachment 2952479


View attachment 2952475View attachment 2952476View attachment 2952477View attachment 2952478View attachment 2952486

Even for a professional photo shoot he won't bother to shave. lol.

He looks New York? Maybe New York hobo.

I tried one of those celebrity face detectors on Lavery's dog hair coat pic. Interesting result.....

View attachment 2952938

Was going to say Phil Spector.

So why did he need to use Lily's credit card, anyway?

Does this man with a six figure income and tenured job not have any credit of his own, or are his cards all maxed out?

Yeah, I know people who make less than 30,000 who can still rustle up some cash when needed. For that level of income, you should have maybe $50k in available credit at any given moment? But of course he didn’t need this coat. It won’t make him a real woman, and like many high end items, it looks like garbage after being worn for poor, commoner activities.

Well, I mean, exactly. This is what Joe does. He throws out something that is extremely difficult to parse and thus is difficult to digest and to form a coherent reply. Really the onus should be on him to provide evidence for each and every part of this convoluted mess, but he's just going to stand there are say 'obvious, innit?' instead of properly laying out the basis for this claim. It's the premise of an entire book, not a statement that you can just pop off as part of an argument.

positioned = who is doing the positioning? Again, exactly. In order for this statement to be valid, Joe would have to actually make a convincing argument that there is a dominant narrative in our culture that constructs women as 'sexually passive', with examples of how this has been done.

'sexually passive' = he needs to parse this, explain what he means by it, and prove, with examples, that it is true.

'and / or' again, there's a whole argument that needs to be made here for why only one or the other is necessary for the definition.

'economically reproductive' = he needs to explain this one, too. Despite what he's implying by just throwing it out there, there isn't a settled and standard definition for this. And then he needs to provide all the same evidence of a dominant narrative that paints women this way.

I could keep going, but you see where the trick is. You just pretend it's all obvious to really smart people, and shift the burden of parsing all that crap onto your debating opponent. Hopefully Joyce will be sensible enough to force him to explain it himself.

For those of you who haven't come across the term, what Joe tends to do is called Sophistry, debate that sounds clever but is intended to deceive people. It's not particularly hard to do, once you've learned academic-speak. Unfortunately it is quite useful as it tends to fool the average layperson into thinking you MUST be really smart. Sometimes people who really ought to know better, too.

He keeps saying we don’t understand what “passive role in sex” means. That we’re so stupid we can’t understand. I can’t see anyway around passive being… well… passive. What does that mean.. the receiver? In his perv speak: the bottom? The one who lies there? The hole?


Is a shark taking the passive role in eating because the prey goes inside it? Couldn’t a vagina just as easily be an aggressive, consumer of male sperm? Selectively choosing what DNA to replicate from the vast field of choices? Aren’t vaginas the organ with agency? Attached to a brain that makes careful selection for the mating ritual? Devouring sperm hungrily and then aggressively turning it into spawn? Kind of like those human eating machines in the Tom Cruise version of The War of the Worlds? I still say how is anything about female reproduction passive? It’s violent really.

 

[Law]

What does that mean.. the receiver? In his perv speak: the bottom? The one who lies there? The hole?

I bet Mallory, Lily and the Craiglists hobos unlucky enough to get roped into their personals ads have to do all the work to get lazy Joe off.
Then I bet he's a passive-aggressive sulking monster if Mallory is a starfish.
Gross men always rant about how passive women are, then get mad when they're with actually passive women so they invent terms like "starfish".

Also according to Joe's breathtakingly stupid definition, are women who never have sex women? Are nuns transmen?

 

[cherrysour]

Also according to Joe's breathtakingly stupid definition, are women who never have sex women? Are nuns transmen?

Or a pregnant lady who makes six figures and likes to be on top -- should she use the men's room?

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

Or a pregnant lady who makes six figures and likes to be on top -- should she use the men's room?

Well, she's presumed to be taking the sexually passive and economically reproductive role, isn't she? I reckon this makes Lily a man since she doesn't have any children but frequently rams a strap-on dildo up Joe's asshole - engaging this kind of argument is a pointless waste of time. It's solely a call-back to the ultra-conservative "kinder, küche, kirche" (children, kitchen, church) sentiment intended to be munition against them god dang conservatards and TERFs.

What he fails - or possibly refuses to - realize it also shits on women who are forced into this role by their circumstances and simultaneously invalidates both those women who choose this role wilfully for whatever reason, those who are denied this role for whatever reason, and those who wilfully reject this role for whatever reason - simply by virtue of the one using the argument. It sounds more like mockery instead of an "honest" hyperbolic argument when used by a degenerate parading around in tasteless women's clothing.

 

[mold]

Is Mallory off T and growing her hair out? She's looking really good in the (spin-doctor) Instagram pic. I'm firmly Team Detrans-Mallory at the moment, she's like the downtrodden character in this story that we hope will one day escape the evil Lair of Perversion.

I don't get the support for Mallory here. She's not an innocent victim. She tried to destroy family members' lives but she also did something even worse, something really unforgiveable. She is a public figure. Her accusations created an association in people's minds between those family members, and sexual abuse of children, and an impression that her family's church covered the abuse up, when she was fully aware that there was no evidence of abuse. She made those accusations because of her personal issues. And because she decided to play out her personal problems with her family on a public stage, she squirted a big black cloud of squid ink into the entire subject of institutional responsibility for preventing child sexual abuse. She and Joe are directly responsible for making this horrible problem less clear in people's minds, for creating doubt and mistrust.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

You have to fill the pages with nonsensical and flowery language because otherwise it's obvious that the "complex answers" are just repeated forms of:
There no real truth. So my truth real truth. My truth not affirmed because capitalism. End capitalism so my truth reality.

Very complex. Much sophisticated. Many insights.

(Where "capitalism" often is just a stand in for nature but it's not quite acceptable yet to accuse nature of being an imposed systemic force of oppression.)

 

[Law]

Well, she's presumed to be taking the sexually passive and economically reproductive role, isn't she?

Well, Joe's certainly not economically reproductive. Guess Mallory married a man after all. RIP Lily's credit card.

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

Well, Joe's certainly not economically reproductive. Guess Mallory married a man after all. RIP Lily's credit card.

Don't call it a grave - similarly to Mallory this is the future Lily chose.
now wait a second am I victim blaming two women here? oh woe is me
I wonder if and when Lily's going to bail. Then again she herself isn't getting any younger and while she isn't nearly as out of shape as Mallory Joe's slobbiness is definitely rubbing on her. It's kind of incomprehensible - I get why "Little Miss Parent Issues" Mal got together with Joe but what could have driven Lily to do the same?

 

[cherrysour]

I don't get the support for Mallory here. She's not an innocent victim.

I think she's behaved abominably vis-a-vis her family *and* she's a victim.

He keeps saying we don’t understand what “passive role in sex” means. That we’re so stupid we can’t understand. I can’t see anyway around passive being… well… passive. What does that mean.. the receiver? In his perv speak: the bottom? The one who lies there? The hole?

He's changed from "presumed" to "positioned," but his definition still requires a third-party perspective. What about, say, an adult human marooned on a desert island? Is that person Schroedinger's human, sex-wise, until rescued?

 

[Treasure Champs]

I think she's behaved abominably vis-a-vis her family *and* she's a victim.

He's changed from "presumed" to "positioned," but his definition still requires a third-party perspective. What about, say, an adult human marooned on a desert island? Is that person Schroedinger's human, sex-wise, until rescued?

Good question. How would Joe define women NOT in patriarchal capitalism? Are there any women in commie dictatorships (lookin' at you, North Korea)? In matriarchal societies? What about those ooga boogas in the Indian Ocean that chuck spears at anyone that comes near them, do they think women are presumed sexually passive and/or reproductive in the conch and chicken bone economy?

 

[lecher]

View attachment 2955665

People are underestimating how easily Lavery will demolish Helen Joyce with complex analysis:
View attachment 2955672
View attachment 2955677
View attachment 2955680
View attachment 2955678

This could even be interesting. The Economist has influence and reach, but Lavery's got the edge on wife-beating.

 

[behindyourightnow]

Not only does my GC self think Joe is stupid, I am perpetually astounded at how stupid he is. Does he not realize that “giving complicated answers to things means you’re smart” is one of the primary axioms of the midwit?

I have no doubt Joe scores high on IQ tests, has extremely high verbal intelligence, and reads and recites well. But he is a good demonstration of the fact that you can do all of those things and still be dumb as hell.

Is a shark taking the passive role in eating because the prey goes inside it? Couldn’t a vagina just as easily be an aggressive, consumer of male sperm? Selectively choosing what DNA to replicate from the vast field of choices? Aren’t vaginas the organ with agency? Attached to a brain that makes careful selection for the mating ritual? Devouring sperm hungrily and then aggressively turning it into spawn? Kind of like those human eating machines in the Tom Cruise version of The War of the Worlds? I still say how is anything about female reproduction passive? It’s violent really.

Never mind that he focuses entirely on the initial sex act and not the reason (evolutionarily speaking) that act exists, which is to create new members of the species.

What is “passive” about growing and pushing little humans out of yourself? Women do that while the male of the species (metaphorically) sits around. Isn’t the male more passive in that sense?

Not to mention that active selection of young happens a lot in mammals. Plenty of mammals will actually miscarry “at will” when they feel threatened or stressed. And almost all mammals will abandon their young if they don’t feel they can care for it. And this applied to humans up until recently more than we would like to admit.

In humans, the initial stages of pregnancy are adversarial for lack of a better word: the embryo tries to implant, but the womb lining makes this difficult; this is a way of trying to ensure that only the strongest embryos will attach, since human pregnancy is such a drain on the mother.

Isn’t choosing (anatomically, instinctively, or consciously) which young get to survive and contribute to the species “active”?

This is what coombrain does to you. Look, I’m definitely not one of those “you must only have sex to conceive babies!” types (thank god for that, given that I am not heterosexual) but I think people like Joe demonstrate how much the opposite extreme of that attitude can exist as well. He’s so wrapped up in the coom that he has literally forgotten that sex is connected to reproduction, and that on a species level it's the latter that is the important thing.

 

[cherrysour]

How would Joe define women NOT in patriarchal capitalism?

Exactly. Whither the Sentinelese? Soviet babushkas? Wonder Woman?

 

[mold]

(Where "capitalism" often is just a stand in for nature but it's not quite acceptable yet to accuse nature of being an imposed systemic force of oppression.)

the philosophers who really knock that particular ball out of the park are radfems and it's funny seeing the antiterfs shoot themselves in the foot theoretically by treating them as radioactive

lol who am I kidding none of those people understand the theory they blab about anyway

 

[AirdropShitposts]

He's changed from "presumed" to "positioned," but his definition still requires a third-party perspective. What about, say, an adult human marooned on a desert island? Is that person Schroedinger's human, sex-wise, until rescued?

That human is a man because they are most likely imposing their dominant narratives on the other species and non-species identifiers on the island in order to exploit them.

All the plants, animals, rocks and sand are women when the human is around but may be men when engaging with each other except when the human is observing as the human will then be imposing his masculinized narrative violence on them.

Look at me, I'm a tenured professor!

 

[kaien]

I have no doubt Joe scores high on IQ tests, has extremely high verbal intelligence, and reads and recites well. But he is a good demonstration of the fact that you can do all of those things and still be dumb as hell.

This is one of the reasons English mediocrities like Joe often cross the pond and find success in American media/academia. They still teach and cultivate that kind of rhetorical aggression in schools over there.

 

[behindyourightnow]

This is one of the reasons English mediocrities like Joe often cross the pond and find success in American media/academia. They still teach and cultivate that kind of rhetorical aggression in schools over there.

The accent is like a spell to Americans as well. Look at the success Richard Dawkins had. He’s reasonably good in his particular field, and I respect his newfound TERFism, but he’s also kind of an idiot when it comes to most things, and he was treated like the second coming of Socrates by Americans of a certain ilk in the 2000s.

Remember when Arrested Development did that whole plotline about Michael falling in love with a mentally challenged woman and couldn't recognize her obvious disability because she was British?