Subscribe via RSS Feed

Author Page for bspencer

rss feed

Visit bspencer's Website

Your Argument is Fat

[ 130 ] September 30, 2015 |

One of the funniest folks in my twitter feed, the fabulous Lindy West.

I follow Lindy West a little because her writing has a feminist bent, but mostly I follow her because I find her extraordinarily funny. And she handles trolls expertly, with astonishing patience and wit. But watching her defend herself against accusations that she is fat gets exhausting after awhile. As if Lindy West doesn’t know she’s fat. As if we don’t all know she’s fat. As if her being fat renders her arguments invalid. The rule at play here is pretty clear: if you’re a feminist and you’re not thin, at any time some anonymous troll can just come back with “you’re fat.” It’s a cruel and obnoxious derailing technique and it makes me livid.

If you follow me on social media, you know I recently posted a full-length picture of myself posing in a really silly pose. My son requested I pose “like a rocker.” So I did. I posted the picture because I turned 43 yesterday, because the picture was funny, and because I’ve lost a decent amount of weight in the past few months and I’m happy about that (for various reasons I prefer to keep private). But if I’m honest with myself, one of the reasons I posted the picture is because I wanted to take the the “you’re fat” card away from any potential trolls. And that makes me really sad. I shouldn’t have to worry about that. And, ideally, I’d be so strong I wouldn’t worry about that card. But frankly I’m not as strong, kind, and patient as Lindy West. (Certainly not as quick-witted, though goddess knows I’m working on it.) Even as a low-profile Internet Feminist, I find the prospect of being at the receiving end of this kind of thing exhausting and terrifying.

Internet Feminist: I think this thing because x x and x.

Troll: That may be so, but…you’re fat.

Internet Feminist: Sure, but the fact still remains that x–

Troll: Faaaaaaaat.

Internet Feminist: Ok, but can we actually deal with the fa–

Troll: Fatty fat fat fat fat…*spittle flecks*

The bottom line is that no matter where you are the political spectrum, it’s the weight of your argument that should matter, not your actual weight. But for too many women, that’s simply not the case.




New Frontiers in Advertising: Pitting Women Against Each Other

[ 92 ] September 28, 2015 |

If you think Ashley Madison is a weird concept for a dating/hook-up site, meet Cougar Life. It’s for cougars. I think cougars are extraordinarily gorgeous, majestic creatures, so I don’t know why they’d need help finding dates, but apparently they do. So I was shocked when I saw the “cougar” in the Cougar Life commercial.  She was a well-preserved (thanks to an obviously pretty lustful embrace of artifice) woman in her 40’s (?). In the ad she proves her cougar bona fides by…insulting younger women.

If you watch/DVR anything that comes on after 11 PM, you’ll probably run across the Adam & Eve ad I’m always seeing. In it nubile, naked young women run around looking nubile and naked while a narrator opines about mean ol’ Edna, an older (of course), fat (of course) woman who judgmentally rings up purchases some unseen person (someone young, hot and sexy obsv). The message is clear: Edna hates this sexy stuff. And why wouldn’t she? She’s fat and over 20. And as we all know, all fat women and all women over 20 are sexless harridans.

If you haven’t seen it yet, here’s one of Ashley Madison’s most notorious ads. I’m almost tempted the add a trigger warning here because I do find it so goddamn offensive.

Read more…

Be Cool

[ 3 ] September 26, 2015 |

Friday Creature Feature Links

[ 41 ] September 25, 2015 |

This is what I will gin up if you ask me to smile

Here’s that Weird List of Rules Again

[ 201 ] September 25, 2015 |

Because y’all seemed to want to riff on it, I thought it deserved its own post, and also it’s Friday. 

Half of these aren’t rules, which is troubling. But what’s more troubling is how goofy, banal and sexist these “rules” are. Also, it’s odd that mothers should play no role in looking out for their daughters. Most troubling are the weird psychosexual issues at play here. I’m pretty sure whoever made this list wants to bang his daughter. At least I was sure of that until I read #10, wherein I became pretty sure the list’s author wants to bang the boyfriend. Whatever you do, boyfriend dude, stay away from The Shocker. Not unless you want some sweaty, angry middle-aged guy groping you and hoping to find your second hole.

Not Satire

[ 194 ] September 24, 2015 |


Roosh thinks women need guardians. Men who choose what we eat (assuming we’re allowed to eat), whom we have sex with (assuming we’re allowed to have sex), and how we should be educated (assuming we should be educated at all). You might think this sounds nutty and cruel, but he’s only looking out for women, as they are too dumb to make decisions on their own.

Now some of you may read all this and get angry. I didn’t. This is his shtick and I’ve heard iterations of these ideas from him before. Honestly, it got me thinking. It seems like it would be really really hard to implement these things for two reasons:

  1. I just don’t think most fathers would be down with it. (Assuming most fathers are at least semi-normal and genuinely love their daughters.)
  2. The fathers who would nominally be down with it would find themselves so overwhelmed with their duties they’d probably get frustrated after awhile. I mean, monitoring someone the way Roosh wants women to be monitored takes a lot of time and effort, and in today’s modern world I just don’t see it working. Honestly, I could only see the idle rich being able to invest this much time in locking the women in their family down.


The Perverted Minds of Anti-Sex Conservatives

[ 207 ] September 24, 2015 |

Ryan T. Anderson, Anti-Choice’s own Matt Damon –“He’s so dreamy and young and bright and articulate!”–has his own little outfit, where he totally proves that he cares about baby-genociding by letting his bloggers bitch about liberal sexytimes.

Earlier this year, an article in New York Magazine featured a story involving an eighteen-year-old woman who plans to marry and have children with her father. When the interviewer asked her to respond to those who might question her relationship, she offered the following reply:

I just don’t understand why I’m judged for being happy. We are two adults who brought each other out of dark places … When you are 18 you know what you want. You’re an adult under the law and you’re able to consent.

Her reasoning is typical of contemporary liberal approaches to sexual morality, which are usually justified by appealing to mutual consent. So long as an activity is performed in private between consenting adults, it is argued, there can be nothing inherently objectionable about what they do.

Except that literally no one is making this argument. I think plenty of consensual sex acts are objectionable. There’s a difference between not wanting to police people’s sex lives and finding people’s sex lives laudable. People who are not literal children (the author is a student at FSU) understand this.  That being said, points for coming right out of the gate with incest. Subtly implying that libs are cool with it makes for zesty readin’.


The defender of liberal sexual morality might respond by making a distinction between consent and informed consent. The self-harmer may choose to engage in these activities, but he does so without the full knowledge and understanding of the self-destructive effects that accompany them. If he really knew what he were about to do, then things might have turned out differently.

But this response is problematic for a number of reasons. If informed consent is just a matter of knowing the risks of one’s actions, then it is quite conceivable that someone may still freely choose to pursue self-destructive actions, having understood and accepted the risks. Yet there still seems to be something deeply wrong with a person who chooses to engage in self-destructive activities, even if he understands the risks of what he is doing.

Her reasoning is typical of contemporary liberal approaches to sexual morality, which are usually justified by appealing to mutual consent. So long as an activity is performed in private between consenting adults, it is argued, there can be nothing inherently objectionable about what they do. Why? Because they have given their consent, and consent is what matters most when it comes to one’s decision to engage in sexual activity.

The implications of this position are far-reaching. Many have invoked the consent principle to argue for the permissibility of polyamory and consensual incest. Once we view the morality of sex as being determined only by mutual agreement, then it becomes very hard to make any principled distinctions about the shape of sexual relationships.

When Consent Goes Wrong

There are a number of problems with this way of understanding sex. The most obvious problem with basing sexual morality on consent is that we can consent to things that are bad for us. Here we need only to think of those who deliberately cut themselves, desire the amputation of a healthy limb, or intentionally neglect their own health. These persons may have consented to engage in these activities, but their exercise of autonomy is nevertheless bad and self-destructive. So the mere fact that we may agree to do something does not show that what we are doing is morally permissible.

Sooo…you used six paragraphs to say that people often engage in self-destructive activities and you brought up incest again. This is getting kind of gross, Timothy. I’m a liberal, so I won’t try to police your incest fantasies, but  I don’t find them laudable. TMI, Timmy. TMI.

Can’t help but notice that Timmy also cops to people engaging in non-sexytime-related self-destructive activities, so I can’t wait to read how he’ll deal with that. Unless he’s just not interested in tackling those subjects because it’ll be harder to indulge in his incest fantasies if he wants to talk about, say, cutting.

The problem with this argument centers on the meaning of “harm.” Persons can be harmed physically, morally, spiritually, psychologically, culturally, educationally, financially, and in many other ways. A harm is simply a setback to any kind of flourishing, and persons flourish in a variety of ways. In a moral sense, every immoral action necessarily harms both the person and the community, for in acting immorally he acts against the moral order. If certain sexual acts are immoral, then they are necessarily harmful as well.

Well, Timmy, I don’t find the idea of truck stop glory holes particularly appealing, but I’m quite sure illicit blowjobs have not prevented me from flourishing. Why, I’m flourishing right now…learning, growing…and my skin’s taken on a kind of opalescent sheen. I’m flush with flourishment.


Sexual liberalism’s misguided view of consent is a symptom of a deeper problem: we have forgotten what it means to be free. Our power of free choice, like the rest of our nature, has a purpose.

Oh, really? According to whom?

The point of freedom is not to choose whatever we want, but to choose only those ends that are in accordance with our rational human nature. It is this exercise of freedom that gives rise to self-mastery. This classical understanding of freedom was best expressed by Samuel West, in a sermon delivered to the Massachusetts legislature in 1776:

The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage. The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe. Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends.

Ah, of course. Finally we get the meat of the thing. God and his little conduit, Timmy, should be deciding what’s sexually moral, obvs. Well, now I’m bored and disappointed. You didn’t stick the landing, Timmy.



Chicken Thighs Braised in Tomato-Ginger Sauce

[ 14 ] September 21, 2015 |


One of my favorite cookbooks from early in my marriage was “While the Pasta Cooks,” because the author appreciated the fact that tomatoes pair beautifully with so many ingredients, even unexpected ones. One of my favorite sauce recipes from the book was a simple one comprised mainly of tomato, ginger and green onions. Though I haven’t cracked the cookbook in a long time, I’ve often thought back fondly to that sauce. Recently I tried to do a take on it, using it as a braising liquid for some chicken thighs.


  • 4-6 chicken thighs (I used bone-in, skin-on because that’s what I had, but I think boneless skinless is easier. If you use the former, be sure to crisp the skin before submerging in the sauce.
  • 1 28 can crushed tomatoes
  • 4-6 green onions, minced
  • 1 dash red pepper flakes or 1 minced, seeded jalapeno
  • 1 tsp. curry powder
  • 1 1/2-2 inches of fresh ginger, grated
  • 4-5 cloves garlic, minced
  • 1-2 tbsp. oil
  • Salt and pepper to taste
  • Chopped fresh cilantro



  1. Heat oil to medium heat.
  2. Taking care not to burn the garlic, stir the green onions, pepper flakes or jalapeño, ginger and garlic, ’til fragrant. Stir in the curry powder and some salt and pepper.
  3. Stir in the tomatoes, along with least a cup of water (sauce thickens up in the oven).
  4. Salt and pepper the thighs, then submerge in the sauce.
  5. Braise in a 325 degree oven for 1 1/2 hours, or until sauce has thickened up and chicken is tender. (Cook uncovered for a spell if sauce is not thickened to your liking.)
  6. Serve over rice and top with cilantro.




The Low Self-Esteem of Milo Yiannopoulos

[ 88 ] September 19, 2015 |

Actual photo of Milo Yiannopoulos

It’s hard to imagine someone having lower self-esteem than Milo Yiannopoulos. The woman who abetted two murderers because they were nice to her? Even she’s like “Wow, that Milo has some issues.” Indeed. Milo Yiannopoulos, a self-loathing gay man, seeks the approval of the elite. And by elite I mean basement-dwelling, misogynistic, emotionally-stunted, neckbearded, pseudo-nerds. There’s possibly no one on the planet more pathetic than Milo Yiannopolous. He’s worse than the woman who calls into shopping channels to rave about the latest offerings from Joy Mangano, she’s the woman who listens and nods along approvingly.

Some of you may know Milo from his role as Gamergate’s most dick-sucking cheerleader. Some of you may know him as the world’s best younger-hipper-Richard-Brookhiser-who-doesn’t-sleep-and-maybe-has-some-prostitutes-stashed-in-his-crawlspace impersonator. But mostly Milo is just a frightened little boy who desperately wants the approval of the internet’s new bullyboys: Gators, MRA’s and librotarians.

He’s furiously working the wangs of the bullyboys in his latest offering, a self-refuting mish-mash of evo-psych, MRA-speak, and dickcheese. If he weren’t such a loathsome human being, I’d feel sorry for him.

Oh, and a quick note on sexbots: I think you’d be hard-pressed to find bigger proponents than internet feminists. Feminists, of all people, are not coming to take your sexbots away. I, for one, am 1000% in favor of them. The idea of these dudes sequestering themselves away with their vidya, porn and bots makes me happy. It makes me really happy. I want these dudes to retreat more and more. I figure the more time they’re diddling their dolls, the less time they have to try to drive women to suicide, ya know? And, hey, if all the sexbot sexytime made them happy perhaps they’d learn to be less horrible. BRING ON THE SEXBOTS. Jesus Christ, they can’t get here fast enough.

UPDATE: It appears that some of you are concerned about my oral sex jokes. You don’t have reason to be. The only person who cares that Milo Yiannopoulos is gay is Milo Yiannopoulos. I wouldn’t even care if he were self-loathing if that self-loathing didn’t fuel him to use his platform to damage other gay people. But he is and he does, so there you have it. In the past I have made the almost identical joke about NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson, whom I’m assuming is not gay but is very certainly self-loathing. I think if there’s a lesson we can take from this it’s just that I am a rude, crude person. There’s nothing more nefarious going on here, I assure you.

Some of My Best Friends Are Nazis

[ 50 ] September 17, 2015 |

No, the word is “bae.”

Today’s Alicublog entry must be read to be believed.

A Thousand Words

[ 130 ] September 15, 2015 |

This picture says them all.


“Vanity Fair” claims that late night is “better than ever.” Yes, clearly.


Key and Peele

[ 30 ] September 12, 2015 |

Comedy Central’s comedy sketch show, “Key and Peele” wrapped up its fifth and final season a few days ago. A sad? Oh yeah, I haz one. I think it’s signing off too quickly, but maybe that’s the point: it’s better to go out on a high note, no? I’ve often said that the show was hit and miss, but I’ve also often said that that is almost always the nature of sketch shows. “Key and Peele” had some low points (or, rather, mediocre ones) but its high points made the show pretty notably awesome.

Part of the show’s success was due to the fact that Key and Peele aren’t just tremendously funny, they’re amazing actors. And the show’s production values were amazing. It was a quality show.

“Vulture” recently asked many comedians to talk about their favorite “K&P” sketches. I, too, was asked but I declined saying “I am a highly-paid blogger, rich in Bitcoin. I only share my opinions on comedy on LGM. Sometimes twitter. Sometimes with whomever is sitting next to me when I’m watching ‘Brooklyn 99.’ It is often a stuffed animal. What was the question again?”

I’ll remember “Key and Peele” for its high points. For Wendell, the lonely nerd, who made his own vanity music video.

It’s gleefully silly and I love it.

I’ll remember K&P for the sketch where the guys listen to two white women talk about how black men are innately “different” from white men. Alternately aroused and horrified, they eavesdrop as the white women get progressively more racist. It’s hilarious and biting.

I loved the sketch where K&P talk tough about their women in private, gradually moving further away and further away from the women so they can safely whisper-yell “I SAID ‘BIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH.'” K&P sketches often took a turn for the surreal. In this one, the dudes end up in outer space–it’s the only place they can brag about their bravado!

Speaking of surreal, I thought the sketch about Steve Urkel being the evil puppet master behind “Family Matters” was pretty brilliant

And, finally, you know how I feel about the “Gremlins 2/Hollywood Sequel Doctor” sketch. I’m still tittering over it.

I know I’m leaving some of my favorites out; perhaps you’ll correct my oversights and offer up some of your own.


Page 1 of 4312345...102030...Last »