Dave at We Hunted the Mammoth shows us this adorable idea from some guy at Reddit who thinks women will soon resort to offering threesomes to get men’s attention. This is really…special.
Women used to maintain a pussy cartel. To get any pussy you had to get married. Men want pussy so they got married. The cartel broke down a bit and women started giving access to pussy after engagement. Then the effort was lowered some more and the couple only had to be “going steady”. Next was “in a committed relationship” and eventually the “3 date rule”. Today you just swipe right on a smartphone.
Women currently sell into a hyper-competitive sex market where once they were buyers with a huge upper hand. The market is flooded and prices have dropped to $0.00. Gone are the days where they could demand any sort of commitment in exchange for access. Women still want men so they provide extra services to the men to compete for attention. Naked pics are extra services they use to keep up with the many women competing for the man they want. Either they send the pics or the guy moves on to the women who will.
I think the next major innovation will be women grouping together to offer threesomes to men in exchange for attention. Once naked pics become normalized they will have to do something. This is the next logical step.
Has it ever occurred to this cupcake that maybe, just maybe, the reason why “the price of pussy dropped” is that women were actually not so interested in long-term heterosexual monogamy? Like, maybe it was the other way around all that time? Maybe women appeared to be so interested in marriage because we kind of had to have husbands in order to get laid and not have to constantly lie about it? As soon as reliable birth control and increasingly permissive social attitudes made it okay for a girl to get some action without commitment, women became the ones who were less interested in marriage.
This kid (along with a whole lot of other Red Pill types) is somehow convinced that women are “giving away” sex because we want something else that men have to offer that they don’t currently give away for free. Does he think we want more of men’s attention? Seriously? Most of us would actually prefer to get less of that. These same guys act like women are degrading themselves by pursuing and enjoying casual sex, while said guys also make a part-time job of trying to manipulate us into giving them more access to our pussies, but, honestly, the sad truth of the matter is that women aren’t using sex as currency. We’re really not. If you can’t imagine why a woman would want to fuck you unless she’s trying to get something else, I guess that means you’re lousy in bed. Try being less lousy in bed.
If a woman’s acting like she really just wants a quick roll in the hay with some cute guy on Tinder, it’s probably because she really just wants a quick roll in the hay. He has nothing to offer her except a decent-looking bod with a healthy cock, and even that much, she might not want for more than one night.
As for threesomes…have you ever considered that if you happen to be in bed with two women at the same time, they’ll be there for each other just as much as for you? And that’s where you should be trying to be less lousy in bed. If you’re lucky enough to be in bed with two ladies at the same time, you don’t want them to ignore you.
Addendum to last night’s post:
Now I remember what the point is of all this talk about “self-defense” in preventing rape.
They don’t really want us to fight back effectively enough to make an attempting rapist think twice before he tries the same thing on someone else. They want us to fight as hard as we can, and still get raped. The idea is that fighting back is proof of rape, not prevention.
In this scenario, the victim may get beaten to a pulp, she may suffer permanent injuries, or she may even be killed, but at least we know she really wasn’t consenting and the rapist is a really bad guy. We may be willing to believe someone who fought like a mad dog and has the injuries to show for it, but of course even then, the goalposts are always shifting on what it means to fight back hard enough. If someone is upset and traumatized, but mostly uninjured, we’re only too happy to call her a liar.
The idea is that we use our defensive wounds to prove that rape is the worst thing that could happen to us. Here’s the thing, though: it’s not the worst thing that could happen. There’s always something worse than a completed rape. Getting beaten nearly to death is worse. Being disfigured is worse. Dying is definitely worse. Rapists know that we know it can always get worse, and they use this to their advantage.
Behind the idea of rape being the worst thing that could happen, though, is the obsession with female purity. This makes sense if we’re expected to be virgins until marriage, and everyone is expected to marry if at all possible. The social order demands that all women either be virgins until marriage, or become martyrs. The injuries of fighting back, no matter how painful, permanent or life-threatening, are the price we’re expected to pay for having failed to defend our purity.
We shouldn’t have to be martyrs. Rape is a bad thing even when it doesn’t ruin our lives. We should be able to live and fight another day.
There’s a lot of discussion of the Bill Cosby case going around Twitter tonight. One question that’s been coming up, and which other smartass feminist chicks are handling better than I have is, basically: “Yeah, but what’s wrong with advocating for self-defense?”
Another name for a “rape kit” is “evidence.” It’s the sort of stuff police use to investigate crimes. With pretty much all other crimes, the state pays for whatever work had to be done to get the evidence together. For example: we don’t expect murder victims’ families to pay for autopsies. No, the state pays the Medical Examiner’s salary so they can figure out how someone died. In some parts of the country, however, rape victims are expected to foot the bill for evidence to be gathered.
If we could really put our heads together and talk about rape culture like adults, without first having to struggle over that perpetual-motion loop of “But I’m obviously the first person to tell you feminists that WOMEN NEED TO BE MORE CAREFUL,” what sort of topics might we cover? What sort of places might our discussion go if we could finally get over that initial hump?
Francesca Lewis at Medium asks us to stop acting like “good men” and “rapists” are discretely bound categories without overlap, and instead understand how rape is a decision that otherwise good men can make.
Some of you may have seen me frothing away on Twitter earlier today about the rape-culture/victim-blaming dynamic. And I’m not feeling any more forgiving on this topic. This is basically how the discussion goes every time (content note for victim-blaming):
ArtParasites ran an anonymous article by a single woman detailing some of the violence she’s encountered from casual sex partners, and, it’s pretty bad. Here’s my Content Note and Trigger Warning for what is best described as “rape.” This is about victim-blaming as much as it’s about the initial violence, and sure enough, cue the continued victim-blaming in comment sections.
For anyone making a show of speculating on how many “unborn babies” lives were “saved” by the shooting at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs: absolutely none. Some of those fetuses might end up getting aborted at a later stage of gestation, at which time they’ll look more human, but those pregnant people still don’t want babies and laying siege to an abortion clinic won’t make them any more interested in adding more human beings to this world.
But don’t shut up on my account! By all means, keep telling us how you understand this act was a terrorist attack against abortion rights. Keep telling us about how the idea of those “unborn babies” is so much more important than the lives of breathing adults.
You LOSE, you get NOTHING, good DAY, sir.
A link to this gem popped up in my Facebook feed this morning, and oh dear, what a perfect Gordian knot of online dating FAIL.
The content is all screenshots, and I can’t be bothered to save/upload/display them on this blog, so I recommend you follow the link to see how the conversation goes. I will fill in with my commentary. My thoughts, occurring in approximately this order:
You may have heard about a panel on online harassment getting cancelled by SXSW because the conference was getting harassed about the panel. Not exactly a surprising turn of events. The anti-feminist brigade is constantly demonstrating to us why we need feminism.
The note went on to explain that “[f]or this reason, we have also cancelled other sessions at the 2016 event that focused on the Gamergate controversy.”
By “other sessions” SXSW actually meant only one other session, a putative discussion of “the Gaming Community” featuring a panel of Gamergaters.
The panel on harassment, while featuring Gamergate critics/targets Randi Lee Harper and Katherine Cross, was not intended to be an anti-Gamergate panel as such, but a wider discussion of harassment online.
If we’re just talking about the fact that they cancelled the panel, I understand that much. You get threats of violence against your conference, you might want to eliminate the locus of those threats, even if it means the terrorists win in the short term. Terrorism can be effective that way. That’s why terrorists keep on terrorizing.
Here’s where they go off the rails, though. It’s the statement they released to explain the cancellations:
[P]reserving the sanctity of the big tent at SXSW Interactive necessitates that we keep the dialogue civil and respectful. If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised.
Oh, it’s that “big tent” again. I’m all in favor of big tents, when implemented appropriately. But here’s the thing: there is no tent big enough to accommodate both harassers and their targets. The prevalence of online harassment has already established that some people are not interested in civil and respectful dialogue. There’s no “marketplace of ideas” with sufficient space for, say, feminist women writers, and those who think feminist women writers are scum who should be bullied off the Internet. There’s no middle ground between, “We belong here and we deserve a space to share our ideas,” and, “no, you’re garbage and we will keep on hounding you until you disappear.”
If your “big tent” is an enabler of harassment, then you need to take a side.