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

[peatbog]

If you're not on social media all day long spewing your every retarded/perverted/misogynistic thought and posting repulsive moob pics, then you're not a cow. I love to hate Joe, but sincerely, good for him for finally shutting the fuck up and going about his disgusting life without constantly trying to get attention for it online.

I wonder if someone had a quiet word with him, or he belated realized that it might be a good idea to tone it down if he wants to keep the Berkeley job. I get it's hard to lose tenure, but posting half-naked photos of former students, not to mention all his other drama, might be one way to do it.

Do we know how well his book sold? I'm guessing he didn't come close to earning his advance back, so between that and resigning from substack, the days of easy money might be over. One of the few options left might be to get even fatter, then make a play for Nicole.

 

[Russiahatesfags]

Mother of God, what happened in here

someone drew cervixes all over the thread. the last 10 pages need a spoiler

 

[AirdropShitposts]

I wonder if someone had a quiet word with him, or he belated realized that it might be a good idea to tone it down if he wants to keep the Berkeley job. I get it's hard to lose tenure, but posting half-naked photos of former students, not to mention all his other drama, might be one way to do it.

Do we know how well his book sold? I'm guessing he didn't come close to earning his advance back, so between that and resigning from substack, the days of easy money might be over. One of the few options left might be to get even fatter, then make a play for Nicole.

Probably narcissist injury from his book tour flopping so hard to where even his personal stalker thread stopped paying attention to it.

 

[GenitalFetishist]

Mother of God, what happened in here

someone drew cervixes all over the thread. the last 10 pages need a spoiler

Disagree. "Cervices with faces" is a category of art I didn't know I needed until this thread.

 

[Potatis Salad]

If you're not on social media all day long spewing your every retarded/perverted/misogynistic thought and posting repulsive moob pics, then you're not a cow. I love to hate Joe, but sincerely, good for him for finally shutting the fuck up and going about his disgusting life without constantly trying to get attention for it online.

My reward for praising Joe for shutting the fuck up: he posted a lovely bit of misogynistic spew on Instagram stories. He's reacting to this article in the British Medical Journal. The Guardian published a discussion of the BMJ article here (archive).

Go ahead, read one or both of the articles. It's a neutral discussion of the rising popularity of anal sex among heterosexual couples and the risks anal sex may pose to women.

Typical Joe overreaction: "SHOCKINGLY LOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!"


The article says that men are pressuring women into anal sex. Joe's response? "WHATABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RAPE???????????????????'



I don't get this one tbh. Now he's saying that a husband or boyfriend begging for anal sex and a wife/girlfriend giving in...is rape?


The pièce de résistance: Joe's scare quotes around "women." [The bottom text reads, "it's also terfery, but people will get cross if i point that out so let's just glide past the claim that 'women' have 'less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men'."]

Indeed, the BMJ article says "women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men." That quotation is footnoted to this article (archive) from the journal Abdominal Radiology. In the study, clinicians analyzed the thickness and length of 33 male sphincter complexes and 52 female sphincter complexes, using 2D and 3D sonography. The clinicians conclude, "Distribution of the sphincter complex is asymmetric in both sexes: the external anal sphincter and internal anal sphincter are significantly shorter in females."

You heard it from Joe: anorectal sonography is a TERF.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

My reward for praising Joe for shutting the fuck up: he posted a lovely bit of misogynistic spew on Instagram stories. He's reacting to this article in the British Medical Journal. The Guardian published a discussion of the BMJ article here (archive).

Go ahead, read one or both of the articles. It's a neutral discussion of the rising popularity of anal sex among heterosexual couples and the risks anal sex may pose to women.

Typical Joe overreaction: "SHOCKINGLY LOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!"
View attachment 3594295

The article says that men are pressuring women into anal sex. Joe's response? "WHATABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RAPE???????????????????'
View attachment 3594299


I don't get this one tbh. Now he's saying that a husband or boyfriend begging for anal sex and a wife/girlfriend giving in...is rape?
View attachment 3594298

The pièce de résistance: Joe's scare quotes around "women." [The bottom text reads, "it's also terfery, but people will get cross if i point that out so let's just glide past the claim that 'women' have 'less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men'."]
View attachment 3594297
Indeed, the BMJ article says "women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men." That quotation is footnoted to this article (archive) from the journal Abdominal Radiology. In the study, clinicians analyzed the thickness and length of 33 male sphincter complexes and 52 female sphincter complexes, using 2D and 3D sonography. The clinicians conclude, "Distribution of the sphincter complex is asymmetric in both sexes: the external anal sphincter and internal anal sphincter are significantly shorter in females."

You heard it from Joe: anorectal sonography is a TERF.

It doesn't take an expert in psychoanalytic theory to figure out why he's so heated and defensive about this topic.

It's so transparent he should be embarrassed to air these feelings in public. Not that he has any sense of appropriate shame or restraint.

 

[Dr. Butt]

Disagree. "Cervices with faces" is a category of art I didn't know I needed until this thread.

Someone give that Pursuit Snail a medal and bake him one of those minion vagina cakes.

 

[Trianon]

My reward for praising Joe for shutting the fuck up: he posted a lovely bit of misogynistic spew on Instagram stories. He's reacting to this article in the British Medical Journal. The Guardian published a discussion of the BMJ article here (archive).

Go ahead, read one or both of the articles. It's a neutral discussion of the rising popularity of anal sex among heterosexual couples and the risks anal sex may pose to women.

Typical Joe overreaction: "SHOCKINGLY LOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!"
View attachment 3594295

The article says that men are pressuring women into anal sex. Joe's response? "WHATABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RAPE???????????????????'
View attachment 3594299


I don't get this one tbh. Now he's saying that a husband or boyfriend begging for anal sex and a wife/girlfriend giving in...is rape?
View attachment 3594298

The pièce de résistance: Joe's scare quotes around "women." [The bottom text reads, "it's also terfery, but people will get cross if i point that out so let's just glide past the claim that 'women' have 'less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men'."]
View attachment 3594297
Indeed, the BMJ article says "women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men." That quotation is footnoted to this article (archive) from the journal Abdominal Radiology. In the study, clinicians analyzed the thickness and length of 33 male sphincter complexes and 52 female sphincter complexes, using 2D and 3D sonography. The clinicians conclude, "Distribution of the sphincter complex is asymmetric in both sexes: the external anal sphincter and internal anal sphincter are significantly shorter in females."

You heard it from Joe: anorectal sonography is a TERF.

I love how Joe's "feminism" boils down to "the girls can do whatever men can do! and i will only be focusing on how that means they can pleasure me sexually!" original. brave. revolutionary.

 

[behindyourightnow]

My reward for praising Joe for shutting the fuck up: he posted a lovely bit of misogynistic spew on Instagram stories. He's reacting to this article in the British Medical Journal. The Guardian published a discussion of the BMJ article here (archive).

Go ahead, read one or both of the articles. It's a neutral discussion of the rising popularity of anal sex among heterosexual couples and the risks anal sex may pose to women.

Typical Joe overreaction: "SHOCKINGLY LOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!"
View attachment 3594295

The article says that men are pressuring women into anal sex. Joe's response? "WHATABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RAPE???????????????????'
View attachment 3594299


I don't get this one tbh. Now he's saying that a husband or boyfriend begging for anal sex and a wife/girlfriend giving in...is rape?
View attachment 3594298

The pièce de résistance: Joe's scare quotes around "women." [The bottom text reads, "it's also terfery, but people will get cross if i point that out so let's just glide past the claim that 'women' have 'less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men'."]
View attachment 3594297
Indeed, the BMJ article says "women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men." That quotation is footnoted to this article (archive) from the journal Abdominal Radiology. In the study, clinicians analyzed the thickness and length of 33 male sphincter complexes and 52 female sphincter complexes, using 2D and 3D sonography. The clinicians conclude, "Distribution of the sphincter complex is asymmetric in both sexes: the external anal sphincter and internal anal sphincter are significantly shorter in females."

You heard it from Joe: anorectal sonography is a TERF.

“average male asshole is 2 times more robust than female” factoid actualy just statistical error. average male asshole is 0 times more robust than female. Asshole Joseph Lavery, who lives in cave & grows over 10,000 robust assholes each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted

 

[Russiahatesfags]

Disagree. "Cervices with faces" is a category of art I didn't know I needed until this thread.

storyboarding some ideas: this nicole person needs to be taken away to a sanitarium in the swiss mountains, where she will live in one room and her cervix will live in another, and they will take walks in sweaters together and cradle mugs

My reward for praising Joe for shutting the fuck up: he posted a lovely bit of misogynistic spew on Instagram stories. He's reacting to this article in the British Medical Journal. The Guardian published a discussion of the BMJ article here (archive).

Go ahead, read one or both of the articles. It's a neutral discussion of the rising popularity of anal sex among heterosexual couples and the risks anal sex may pose to women.

Typical Joe overreaction: "SHOCKINGLY LOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!!"
View attachment 3594295

The article says that men are pressuring women into anal sex. Joe's response? "WHATABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RAPE???????????????????'
View attachment 3594299


I don't get this one tbh. Now he's saying that a husband or boyfriend begging for anal sex and a wife/girlfriend giving in...is rape?
View attachment 3594298

The pièce de résistance: Joe's scare quotes around "women." [The bottom text reads, "it's also terfery, but people will get cross if i point that out so let's just glide past the claim that 'women' have 'less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men'."]
View attachment 3594297
Indeed, the BMJ article says "women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men." That quotation is footnoted to this article (archive) from the journal Abdominal Radiology. In the study, clinicians analyzed the thickness and length of 33 male sphincter complexes and 52 female sphincter complexes, using 2D and 3D sonography. The clinicians conclude, "Distribution of the sphincter complex is asymmetric in both sexes: the external anal sphincter and internal anal sphincter are significantly shorter in females."

You heard it from Joe: anorectal sonography is a TERF.

I was also about to say, as long as Joe had stopped talking about expectant assholes, I had no real criticisms
Not to get into another political spergery tangent but with this: "a husband or boyfriend begging for anal sex and a wife/girlfriend giving in...is rape?" --joe is in agreement with the TERF position here

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

I would point out that “trans” as a label is meaningless if you’re identical to actual women, but Joe would probably say “trans” simply refers to women who are arbitrarily denied the label by the cis-archy that randomly decided the people with vaginas were women.

 

[Russiahatesfags]

double post also but "begging wife for anal sex" is some kind of faggotry

 

[AirdropShitposts]

I don't even have a clue what he's complaining about. Seems a bit paranoid about the fact that someone wrote an article saying that anal sex may have downsides and that some people raise potential objections to it. Why would you get this upset about such an article unless you think other people should be obligated to feel positively about anal sex?

 

[3MMA]

rapid onset troon attraction midlife crisis

ROTAMC. This phrase needed to be highlighted.

“Good to come to this conclusion, I suppose, but it's sad that everyone told her this and she couldn't hear that it was a bad idea to just warp across the country and immediately get into rage-filled group sex to disguise the emotional wound. Ah well.”

(@Trianon quote reply was disabled.)
A striking point, imo, was the admittance that Joe doesn’t fill the void in her life. Joe and all the trappings of faux-righteous fury which he came with. It’s obvious that no one person or relationship can fill you (in general) with all that you’re missing. Still, intelligent (on some level) people make the mistake Moe makes, over and over again. Grasping at excuses, she’s indirectly alluding to this fact, in those telling posts you’ve kindly archived ITT.

Is Mallory BPD because this is so her.

Yes.

---

As I was cleaning out my archives, came across a small bit of the greatest hits, from this definitely not heterosexual couple, (& friends.) Some of these have seen the light of day ITT, others have not. Figured I’d share them before they are lost to time.

Spoiler: Sample of Greatest Hits

Before marriage:

Text:

Joe proposed three months into knowing Mallory. We know what eventually happened, as they (esp Joe) couldn’t shut up about it. Anyhow. Gross art, (since deleted off IG, found in my archives):

Artist unknown, friend of the Lav’s, found a few years ago in their tagged on IG section. Text says, “transsexual royal wedding.” It’s likely it was removed for the transsexual word, which fell out of vogue fast.

Speaking of “tagged” sections, best angle of their most infamous portrait.

“…who fucks, in case anyone was wondering. ” No, Joe, we weren’t.

None of this Joe stuff, filled that void for Moe. First instinct is often the best, when she said “No,” to that marriage proposal the first time, she had the right of it, more so than now. Instead she married the jerk who posts humiliating pics of her online, amongst other horrifying things.

A little Nicole to round things up.

Just a little closer look, for the current star ITT. Step it up, Joe, Moe, or even Curly. You gonna let ole Cliffe dominate you this hard? Joe’s latest twitter sock is out there somewhere. Not sure it’s worth hunting down at this moment. He’s gone so flabby and pedestrian in his moping about that flop of a memoir.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

Before marriage:
View attachment 3597105

Horrifying to see a normal looking if also annoying hipster couple go from this to...their present state, in so short a time. Every bit as tragic and shocking as "the faces of meth." I don't give a fuck about these two as people- they're beyond any hope short of God directly intervening- but there are sadly many others headed down the same destructive path who weren't journos/academics and whose lives therefore otherwise could have been valuable and worth living.

 

[Trianon]

Oh no, Joe has a Rushdie take.



(The selfie reminds me of a Rioley pic.)

May I say, Joe, that if "moneyed and institutionalized center-left celebrities" like Rushdie are not safe from being knifed for writing words, then that shows the extent of the problem. While Joe might clutch his handkerchief over normie Rushdie criticism being lumped in with fatwas and jihad, he makes no such distinction between normie/gender critical positions about sex and the genocide of trans women!!!!

Oh, but he's not done. When you really think about it, hasn't he, too, been fatwa'd?



Full text for better readability:

Spoiler

A couple of friends have reached out to share feelings of grief and anger around the attack on Salman Rushdie. I share it, of course, and now is as good a time as any to reassert the fact that freedom of expression is a fundamental dimension of the scholarly discipline I practice, and an essential enabling condition of the creative work I put into the world. Yet I can’t agree with the consensus that seems to be congealing around the notion that “censorship [has] replaced tolerance as desirable behaviour,” as Jo Glanville puts it in today’s Guardian. This line of argument seems to surface when the interests of a particular class are threatened—the class to which Salman Rushdie belongs, of moneyed and institutionalized center-left celebrities. We might ask, then, why it is that the Rushdie affair remains the central case study for liberal defenses of free speech politics, rather than (for example) when successive governments insist on promoting “British values” in schools, or when leadership candidates promise to prevent teachers from educating their students on the history of British colonialism.

I suspect it is because, despite the ubiquitous assertion that one can defend the *principle* of free speech without defending any particular position, in fact liberals mobilize free speech debates to suppress criticism of positions they support. Jo Glanville does precisely this in the very Guardian article that is being shared today, when she criticizes Roald Dahl for referring to Rushdie as “a dangerous opportunist.” It is *in principle* possible to hold both the belief that Rushdie is an opportunist (and further, a boor, a prig, and a hamfisted composer of prose) *and* the belief that he should not be physically attacked, nor his life upended by a sudden and shocking need to protect himself from a violent enemy. Indeed, these are the beliefs I myself hold! Nobody is obliged to defend Rushdie’s work as a precondition for advocating for his safety. The test of a free speech defense is the extent to which it can *resist* deriving defensibility from merit.

Those shouting loudest about our apparent failure to defend free speech routinely fail this test. These are the people who defended the University of Sussex administrators who threatened to expel students who criticized their famous faculty, to take one recent and especially egregious example. And I speak from experience. Like Salman Rushdie, I have written plenty of work that pisses off those who are predisposed to dislike me; like Rushdie, I have received death threats from multiple sources; like Rushdie, I have spent a significant amount of my own resources protecting myself. Yet during all this, not one of the free speech liberals argued that I had a right to publish the work they hate: on the contrary, Helen Joyce was tweeting about how the Irish Times should retract even their *review* of my book, since the review took a position she disagrees with. This was the common GC line at the time, and as far as I know it remains so.

Helen Joyce must publish whatever she wishes, wherever she can. So must Salman Rushdie. Luckily, because they are both members of the British establishment and the global ruling class, they are unlikely to have those capacities curtailed. The people whose speech most needs your defense are people whose names you don’t know, whose work is being pushed out of publishing houses and bookstores because it doesn’t repeat the hypocritical and fatuous nostrums of contemporary liberalism.

Micah also tweeted about it, which is a subtweet of Joe if you want it to be. Neither of them realize this, but I have analyzed it and I'm right.

 

[squirreltail]

May I say, Joe, that if "moneyed and institutionalized center-left celebrities" like Rushdie are not safe from being knifed for writing words, then that shows the extent of the problem. While Joe might clutch his handkerchief over normie Rushdie criticism being lumped in with fatwas and jihad, he makes no such distinction between normie/gender critical positions about sex and the genocide of trans women!!!!

Oh, but he's not done. When you really think about it, hasn't he, too, been fatwa'd?

View attachment 3598669

The narcissistic version of Je Suis Charlie.

Get back to us when you have to go into actual hiding with armed guards.

Actually I'm sure the Ayatollah would hate Joe too. If Joe were important enough for him to have heard of.

 

[Dr. Butt]

A striking point, imo, was the admittance that Joe doesn’t fill the void in her life. Joe and all the trappings of faux-righteous fury which he came with. It’s obvious that no one person or relationship can fill you (in general) with all that you’re missing. Still, intelligent (on some level) people make the mistake Moe makes, over and over again. Grasping at excuses, she’s indirectly alluding to this fact, in those telling posts you’ve kindly archived ITT.

Joe proposed three months into knowing Mallory. We know what eventually happened, as they (esp Joe) couldn’t shut up about it. Anyhow. Gross art, (since deleted off IG, found in my archives):

None of this Joe stuff, filled that void for Moe. First instinct is often the best, when she said “No,” to that marriage proposal the first time, she had the right of it, more so than now. Instead she married the jerk who posts humiliating pics of her online, amongst other horrifying things.

Mallory is like the Bam Margera of abuse victims. On one hand, #saveMallory, but on the other, she doesn't want help and will shit all over you then publish it if you get her out of her "marriage".

 

[cherrysour]

"Yet during all this, not one of the free speech liberals argued that I had a right to publish the work they hate."

If no one's defending his "right to publish" his masturbatory bullshit, it's only because no one's attacked it. He, in typified personality-disorder fashion, takes any challenge to/mockery of his position as a threat to his very existence (quelle horreur).

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Oh no, Joe has a Rushdie take.
View attachment 3598658
View attachment 3598667
View attachment 3598685
(The selfie reminds me of a Rioley pic.)

May I say, Joe, that if "moneyed and institutionalized center-left celebrities" like Rushdie are not safe from being knifed for writing words, then that shows the extent of the problem. While Joe might clutch his handkerchief over normie Rushdie criticism being lumped in with fatwas and jihad, he makes no such distinction between normie/gender critical positions about sex and the genocide of trans women!!!!

Oh, but he's not done. When you really think about it, hasn't he, too, been fatwa'd?

View attachment 3598669

Full text for better readability:

Spoiler

A couple of friends have reached out to share feelings of grief and anger around the attack on Salman Rushdie. I share it, of course, and now is as good a time as any to reassert the fact that freedom of expression is a fundamental dimension of the scholarly discipline I practice, and an essential enabling condition of the creative work I put into the world. Yet I can’t agree with the consensus that seems to be congealing around the notion that “censorship [has] replaced tolerance as desirable behaviour,” as Jo Glanville puts it in today’s Guardian. This line of argument seems to surface when the interests of a particular class are threatened—the class to which Salman Rushdie belongs, of moneyed and institutionalized center-left celebrities. We might ask, then, why it is that the Rushdie affair remains the central case study for liberal defenses of free speech politics, rather than (for example) when successive governments insist on promoting “British values” in schools, or when leadership candidates promise to prevent teachers from educating their students on the history of British colonialism.

I suspect it is because, despite the ubiquitous assertion that one can defend the *principle* of free speech without defending any particular position, in fact liberals mobilize free speech debates to suppress criticism of positions they support. Jo Glanville does precisely this in the very Guardian article that is being shared today, when she criticizes Roald Dahl for referring to Rushdie as “a dangerous opportunist.” It is *in principle* possible to hold both the belief that Rushdie is an opportunist (and further, a boor, a prig, and a hamfisted composer of prose) *and* the belief that he should not be physically attacked, nor his life upended by a sudden and shocking need to protect himself from a violent enemy. Indeed, these are the beliefs I myself hold! Nobody is obliged to defend Rushdie’s work as a precondition for advocating for his safety. The test of a free speech defense is the extent to which it can *resist* deriving defensibility from merit.

Those shouting loudest about our apparent failure to defend free speech routinely fail this test. These are the people who defended the University of Sussex administrators who threatened to expel students who criticized their famous faculty, to take one recent and especially egregious example. And I speak from experience. Like Salman Rushdie, I have written plenty of work that pisses off those who are predisposed to dislike me; like Rushdie, I have received death threats from multiple sources; like Rushdie, I have spent a significant amount of my own resources protecting myself. Yet during all this, not one of the free speech liberals argued that I had a right to publish the work they hate: on the contrary, Helen Joyce was tweeting about how the Irish Times should retract even their *review* of my book, since the review took a position she disagrees with. This was the common GC line at the time, and as far as I know it remains so.

Helen Joyce must publish whatever she wishes, wherever she can. So must Salman Rushdie. Luckily, because they are both members of the British establishment and the global ruling class, they are unlikely to have those capacities curtailed. The people whose speech most needs your defense are people whose names you don’t know, whose work is being pushed out of publishing houses and bookstores because it doesn’t repeat the hypocritical and fatuous nostrums of contemporary liberalism.

Micah also tweeted about it, which is a subtweet of Joe if you want it to be. Neither of them realize this, but I have analyzed it and I'm right.
View attachment 3598677

Wow, standing on the bloody body of a far more accomplished, far more famous, far more serious person to try to get attention for himself. That first post, translated, reads, "Rushdie, I, I, I, me, me, me, me, me, me."