Susan “Chartbuster” Walsh does it again

Susan Walsh, the slut-shaming, chart-making dating guru behind Hooking Up Smart, has made yet another chart! This time, it’s a flowchart attempting to diagram “the anatomy of a hookup.” While not quite as impressively incoherent as her infamous flowchart trying to explain the dire economic costs of sluttery, or as plainly incorrect as her diagram purporting to show that hot dudes get all the sex, this one is impressively daft nonetheless. I suggest you click here to see it full-size.

Well, I’ve followed all the various little arrows around on the chart, and as far as I can tell, her point is that if you have sex with someone, this may not result in true love for all time. There’s a shock. In other words, all these little boxes and arrows are intended to draw our attention to the fact that, as Cliff Pervocracy has put it, “every relationship does either end or continue. I salute your tautological genius.”

The other thing to notice about Walsh’s chart is that she apparently can’t conceive that people can remain friends, or even become friends, after sex. As Walsh loves to remind her female readers, having sex with someone doesn’t  automatically make them fall in love with you. But it doesn’t make them automatically hate you or want to have nothing to do with you either.

So I present to you a somewhat more simplified hookup flow chart, which nonetheless manages to cover the possibility that people who hook up with one another can sometimes become friends afterwards.

Super Obvious Note: All friendships and relationships may at some point come to an end, or change into something else.

Despite the clear flaws of Walsh’s chart – it’s a strange mixture of obviousness and obliviousness  — many of Walsh’s readers hailed it as a work of genius. One anonymous commenter wrote:

I don’t think there has ever been a better visual representation for the hookup that shows its futility from the woman’s point of view.

Sassy6519 agreed:

That diagram looks as pleasant as trying to cross a minefield.

And that, of course, is the real message Walsh is trying to get across with her (probably deliberately) muddled chart: hookups are scary!

As Walsh put it in a comment:

The point of the chart is really to highlight the odds of getting to dating via a hookup. Studies say 12% of the time. All those yellow and red boxes are just a visual representation of those odds.

Of course, in Wash’s vision, not “getting to dating” is apparently as bad for women as getting an STD, or finding out the guy you’re fucking is a feminist, or something.

Ian Ironwood agreed with her analysis, more or less, but urged his fellow dudes to exploit the situation for their own advantage:

Men are starting to learn their own value in the dating world. They’re beginning to learn Game and use women’s desire for a relationship as leverage. And that means that they’re raising their expectations (which sucks for feminists, who are constantly trying to lower women’s expectations of themselves while raising it for men) and getting a lot more canny about just who they want to spend their lives with.

Men are, indeed, the keepers of commitment. It’s the masculine equivalent of our “virtue”, our ability and willingness to ally ourselves with one woman (or just a few). Those fellas in the Puerarchy who are still hooking up like mad, y’all are the rest of that leverage. With Game-savvy PUAs pumpin’ & dumpin’ like it’s on sale, they provide a bleak alternative to pursuing commitment with a quality dude, which means his value as a high-status male goes up with his willingness to commit. But that also means his expectations of his future bride go up as well.

Guys, recognize your value to women, and use it to your advantage. Remember, a woman in a crappy relationship enjoys higher status in the Matrix than a woman without a relationship, all things being equal. They crave the validation they get from their female peers in the Matrix more than they even crave the romantic connection. That provides a tremendous amount of leverage for the dude who understands that.

Other dudes, nonetheless, still feel that women are too icky to deal with. Herb put it this way:

[I]f there is one lesson Game types and MRA should be pushing it is this:

“A man needs to be ridden by a woman as much as a bicycle needs to be ridden by a fish.”

And yes, I changed it from “have” to “ridden by” for a reason. In the combat dating era, especially in marriage 2.0, men are saddled and ridden too often.

You don’t need a woman in your life to be a man or be complete. …

If you physically need sexual contact there is no shame in deciding the way women have organized the current SMP is a losing game and just turn to the world’s oldest profession (which too many women let themselves become even if they don’t realize it)

You know, if you’re running a dating site ostensibly to provide useful information for young women, and your most enthusiastic commenters are either PUAs hoping to use that information to better exploit women, or MGTOWers looking for more excuses to denigrate and dismiss all women, maybe you’re doing something wrong.

Friend-of-Man-Boobz Ozymandias tried to inject some good sense into the discussion over there. Unfortunately, very little of it stuck.

EDITED TO ADD: I added a quote from Walsh.

About these ads

Posted on May 2, 2012, in alpha males, antifeminism, antifeminst women, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, PUA, reactionary bullshit, sex, sluts, whores. Bookmark the permalink. 129 Comments.

  1. [blockquote] If you let him do it, love you? He will! [/blockquote]

    Is this supposed to be performed out loud? Because without visible punctuation, it’s going to sound like a line from Yoda Was My Wingman.

    Another problem with this chart is that it doesn’t take into account that EVEN IF you actually are interested in dating, ‘fade’ isn’t necessarily a worse outcome than nothing. I ‘hooked up’, to use the parlance, with someone I knew online, and within about an hour of meeting her in real life, I was MASSIVELY crushing on her (I still am, she’s awesome!) and would have loved to be dating her. It wasn’t anything more than just-friends funtimes for her, so that didn’t happen, but I don’t regret the experience. It was fun! A lot of people don’t get the chance to have sexytimes with their crush like that, so I feel really happy that I got to.

  2. Huh, I thought that was how you did quotes. Oh well.

  3. Steph, just replace the square brackets with the angled ones (greater than/less than).

  4. I don’t think Susan Walsh is all that bad, compared to the Spearhead, Manwomanmyth, Paul Elam, and the various psychos who follow their blogs. Unlike these guys, Walsh doesn’t actually HATE women. But I do think your chart is WAY better.

  5. @tetragami: I guess that your partner had every right to reevaluate his desire for sex at any time based on his values, but it seems to me problematic on his part that he was assuming a long-term deal was implied in the first place. I was making a joke that he was following the conservative idea that if he ‘poked’ it he should therefore implicitly own it, and that you disabusing him of that notion made the sex undesirable.

    Teragami – I think what Blackbloc was saying was that the fellow was no longer interested in poking you if there was no possibility of owning you. Zie’s referring to Amanda Marcotte’s observation that much patriarchal resentment of women’s sexual liberation is that many men still believe “if you poke it, you own it” (a reference to a very blatant double entendre in a beer commercial from a few years back), and resent the fact that this is no longer the case. The charmer you had the misfortune of sleeping with is apparently one of them.

    Um. I am kind of uncomfortable with people assuming this guy is conservative and/or sexist based on nothing more than him apparently not enjoying one-night stands. I can see criticizing the fact that he didn’t act for clarification before the sex started to make sure he and his partner were both on the same page, because it definitely makes much more sense to ask about such things in advance than to assume anything, but there’s a pretty big difference between “apparently took too long to communicate his expectations clearly” and “obviously thinks he should get to own people.” And, I mean, maybe he was a jerk about it – I can’t tell from the tiny bit of the story we got, but obviously if he was a jerk about it then that warrants criticism. I just don’t see anything in “we started to have sex, then I clarified what I wanted, and he said he didn’t want that, so we stopped having sex” that makes either party look like a bad person, and I am generally really, really, really uncomfortable with anything that criticizes people for stopping sex they don’t want for any reason.

  6. “The problem arises when women collectively relinquish the role of sexual gatekeeper.”

    I don’t know much, but I do know that Sexual Gatekeeper is the best imaginary funk album from 1977 that I’ve ever heard of.

  7. “She lied about her age” actually does make perfect sense, unless not having sex remains an option even after you’ve found out the other person’s age.

  8. O/T, but did anyone catch the newest Bob’s Burgers taking the piss out of PUAs? I died.

  9. The people at Hooking up Smart believe that all men want no strings attached sex, and that all women want long term, monogamous relationships. How then do they explain gay men that have long term relationships and marriages, or lesbians that prefer casual hookups?

    We don’t even need to move out of Hetland for this one. How do they explain men who want relationships and women who want no-strings-attached sex? Oh, right, they don’t. Fear of Flying never existed, lalalalala.

    Pat Califia had their number a long time ago: they’re fetishists, and their kink is gender roles.

  10. Jokes appart, yes NSA means No String Attached (sex). But I love the idea that the NSA is involved into casual sex not leading always to marriage. It’s a new conspiracy!

  11. Erm, is it just me or does that Shining Pearl nonsense have a dire ‘square, Conservatives trying to do rap’ sort of a quality? Are they just trying to be hip with the kids or is there the delectable soupçon of racism in there as well? All I know is that there is absolutely no poetry whatsoever in that composition.

    Wait, wait, I’m going to send it to my partner, who is finishing up his PhD on early modern poetry. He might cry a little when he reads it.

  12. Oh, oh, I take back my unfair assessment now that I see the poem was written by a student. So it’s just a terrible poem, then. Ah well.

  13. This is the resulting analysis of the verse:

    The poem manages adroitly to catch the nuances of a plausible conversation while not ignoring the rhythmic pull of ‘metrical’ speech. It is a skill few (bar Robert Browning) have managed to accomplish so successfully. The student also plays impressively with degrees of rhyme: sometimes s/he uses some pararhymes (‘deal’/’will’, ‘pearl’/’world’), sometimes the old full-rhyme (‘pleasure’/’treasure’ &c). The full-rhymes assert themselves ever more strongly as the poem progresses, counterpointing the assuredness of the abstinent’s position against the more colloquial roughness of the peer (whose comparative failure to secure full-rhymes demonstrates that her argument does not quite tally). The experiments with line-length are redolent of Tudor efforts to co-opt classical quantitative metre in the verncular. There is also a Spenserian element insofar as the clinching climactic line (so to speak) features a booming sixteen syllables, capping the poem with a heavy syllabic slab of power-arguing (much like the Alexandrine in the ninth line of the Spenserian stanza gives it an extra punch). Those are some initial thoughts.

    I hope you appreciate that this constitutes humour between us. Please try not to pity us too much.

  14. donsie: That was wonderful.

  15. I am generally really, really, really uncomfortable with anything that criticizes people for stopping sex they don’t want for any reason.

    Good point, and well said. I stand corrected.

    Still, I hope for his sake he’s learned to communicate what he really wants better since then. It’s a bad thing to discover these major dealbreakers when you’re actually inside someone.

  16. @donsie: Why am I suddenly nostalgic for my alma mater? Must be the heady and redolent scent of Blather Skite in the air!

    Kudos!

  17. donsie: Excellent. I like your friend.

    The thing I find somewhat strange is that while Walsh is trying to say that the status quo is absolutely TERRIBLE for women and gives all the power to men (because sometimes one might do a thing with someone and then not do that thing with that person again afterwards), one of the commenters you quote is saying that the status quo is absolutely TERRIBLE for men because the ladies have all the power and have set it up in a terribly unfair way along with the School Mathematics Project.

  18. I’ll have to tell him you liked it! Maybe he can make it into a meaningless flowchart.

  19. @MissPrism

    That’s the interesting thing about Walsh, she wants women to regain power in this “sexual market place” and actually reinforces this hypergamy idea. Basically she wants women to stop giving it away for free and make men work harder and prove themselves to women, wine and dine them then commit to them, THEN its acceptable to have sex. Isn’t this what MRAs are against? how is it she can gain so much approval from MRAs and PUAs? do they actually want to buy women dinner, work harder and pay for a house in order to get sex? how is that liberating? it makes no fucking sense.

    I think the ideal society we should be striving for is one where sex is not used as something to extract resources from someone. Are we really not human enough to do so? or is it just that too many people are happy enough to act like apes? I notice this in manosphere dudes the most, they revel in it because it doesn’t take any effort and a convenient excuse to fall back on (its my hardwiring to be a dickhead!) meanwhile if women fall back on their so-called biological hardwiring of alpha chasing MRAs will still degrade and vilify them for it.

    Why is male biological hardwiring accepted and excused but female biological hardwiring not?

    (this is all assuming any of this is even true)

  20. Basically she wants women to stop giving it away for free and make men work harder and prove themselves to women, wine and dine them then commit to them, THEN its acceptable to have sex. Isn’t this what MRAs are against?

    You’d think so. In reality, what they are against is the exchange rate (they think a drink and/or a dinner is too much to pay for sex, which makes me wonder if they’ve ever checked out the price of hiring a sex worker) and the fact that women are not obligated by law to respect the unspoken contract that dinner = sex, and that women may thus have the audacity to think that if you offer to pay them drinks or dinner, these things are disinterested gifts rather than some ‘gotcha’ lure that entraps them into sex.

  21. I don’t think their complaint is that a drink and/or a dinner is too much to pay for sex. I think their problem is that actually liking a person is too high a price to pay for sex. They seem to want to have sex with women while simultaneously hating women. It makes me think that what they enjoy about sex is in no way related to what I enjoy about sex, so much so that I do not think that MRAs and I could understand each other at all when talking about sex.

  22. What I really don’t get is why if they think a drink and/or dinner is too much to pay for sex, why they bother with that in the first place. I’ll admit it’s nice to be offered those things, but not a requirement. And quite frankly, ever since a guy friend of mine basically made me feel like shit over dinner and drinks he’d insisted he get to buy me, I tend to be a lot less trusting of men who take it to an extreme. Cue cries of what a distrusting, misandrist bitch I am for thinking some men might be trying to manipulate me by making me feel like i “owe” them.

    If they think a drink is too much in “payment” maybe they could just say “hey, I dig you. Wanna fuck?” and see where that gets you. That might not work, but it might. And at least if it doesn’t, they don’t have to spend the night being bitter about how she “owed” him.

  23. The thing is, 50% of MARRIAGES end in “dump/fade”.

    Why didn’t she just put “get married!” in the first box? Oh, right. Because that’s not in the script. There’s as much “truth” in this propaganda as there is in a Chick tract.

  24. I don’t think their complaint is that a drink and/or a dinner is too much to pay for sex. I think their problem is that actually liking a person is too high a price to pay for sex. They seem to want to have sex with women while simultaneously hating women. It makes me think that what they enjoy about sex is in no way related to what I enjoy about sex, so much so that I do not think that MRAs and I could understand each other at all when talking about sex.

    Fatman, you hit the nail on the head. Sex isn’t fun for them. It’s a contest of wills. It’s like playing basketball–it’s no fun if the opposing team keeps handing you the ball and helping you make a basket. The fun is in taking something or getting one over on someone.

    Nothing pisses an MRA off more than falling in love. They’d just ruin it for spite. No way is anyone going to have that power over them, by God.

  25. I think a lot of the more hostile type of Nice-Guy™-ism is rooted in that, combined with our old friend “making me have a reaction is something they are doing to me.” So “i have a crush on her” becomes “she has power over me” becomes “she is trying to control me” without the person having to even be aware the Nice Guy™ exists.

  26. Discordia:AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!! The comments over there are inveruriating…I also just had to comment on that fool that was scolding you for for saying 40 year olds should not be sleeping with teens because the bitch lied! Shye said she was 18 btw if you don’t beleive me thats MISANDRY!!

    If you realise the real argument they are trying to make, it all makes sense.

    The argument is basically, “a stiff prick has no conscience”, which has an implied corrolary: Make sure no prick is ever stiffed.

    So, if they pop wood, it’s open season. All the rest is just window dressing.

  27. Ah, that makes me remember the time I tried to woo a girl in my class using Robert Green’s “The Art of Seduction” as a template. At some point I realized that all I was doing was creating social pressure on her by means of publically presenting her with gifts and attention she could not turn down.

    It was kinda disgusting, really.

  28. When I was twenty it happened once that a guy offered to buy me a drink out at a club. I wasn’t attracted to him at all, and said “no thanks”. The following conversation went something like this:
    Guy: Don’t you want a drink?
    Me: Well, I might want a drink, but I can buy one myself, so no thanks.
    Guy: But why can’t I buy you a drink if you want one?
    Me: Well, it’s just that I’m not interested.
    Guy: But I just offered to buy you a drink!
    Me: Well, yes, but we all know that means you’re flirting, right?
    Guy: NO! I just wanted to buy you a drink! Nothing more!
    Me: So you’re not interested in me or anything, you just had this URGE to BUY ME A DRINK for no apparent reason?
    Guy: YES!
    Me: Okay, whatever, I’ll take the drink.

    The guy ended up buying me drinks all night, and then he was pissed off when I didn’t want to go home with him. There’s just no pleasing some people.

  29. When guys offer to buy one of my friends a drink at the bar, she will take the drink and walk off with it. XD

    I’m honestly not sure if this makes the problem better or worse! I guess she figures since she’s already attached and the guy’s obviously trying too hard, he’s getting what he deserves. I personally can’t accept things when I know someone’s motive for giving me them is misguided–one time she got two drinks off a guy and gave me one, and I shamefacedly told the bartender to put one of the drinks on my tab because he looked horrified at her being so mercenary. :P

  30. I don’t think their complaint is that a drink and/or a dinner is too much to pay for sex. I think their problem is that actually liking a person is too high a price to pay for sex. They seem to want to have sex with women while simultaneously hating women. It makes me think that what they enjoy about sex is in no way related to what I enjoy about sex, so much so that I do not think that MRAs and I could understand each other at all when talking about sex.

    This, bigtime.

    It makes me wonder how they have sex just physically, too. I think it must be either a horrible two-pumps-and-tell-her-to-get-out fuck, or look ordinary on the surface but be filled with resentment that they “have” to pleasure the woman and they “have” to cuddle afterwards, treating both as miserably humiliating obligations that exist only for humiliation’s sake.

    Meanwhile in the real world, I’ve been with multiple guys who actually asked to cuddle but then declined sex. That’s gotta break some MRA brains.

    (Sadly, I’m sure there’s some confirmation-bias-tastic explanation they could come up with. Like, the cuddling was beta supplication to attempt to establish themselves as Nice Guys, and of course they secretly resented having to do it and secretly just wanted to fuck me.)

  31. @MollyRen: I know many women do that, but I think it’s terribly rude. Everyone knows that “can I buy you a drink?” is something a guy says to flirt with you. If you’re totally not interested in the guy at all, you should decline the drink. I’m NOT arguing that accepting the drink is like signing a contract to have sex with the guy, but it IS like saying “yeah, I’m kind of interested in you too” – you shouldn’t imply that when it’s not true, just to get a free drink.

    I mean, the guy who bought me drinks that night was a douche who couldn’t take no for an answer, so I don’t feel sorry for him in the slightest, but the fact that somebody comes up to you and goes “can I buy you a drink” doesn’t automatically make him a douche and doesn’t automatically mean that it’s allright to just take the drink and walk off and laugh at him.

  32. @Ms. Quackers
    [blockquote]That’s the interesting thing about Walsh, she wants women to regain power in this “sexual market place” and actually reinforces this hypergamy idea. Basically she wants women to stop giving it away for free and make men work harder and prove themselves to women, wine and dine them then commit to them, THEN its acceptable to have sex. Isn’t this what MRAs are against? how is it she can gain so much approval from MRAs and PUAs? do they actually want to buy women dinner, work harder and pay for a house in order to get sex? how is that liberating? it makes no fucking sense.[/blockquote]

    That’s because what MRAs, and especially PUAs, desire most fervently isn’t freedom from having to buy women dinner or otherwise pay for sex. It’s that they want freedom from uncertainty. Once a drink, dinner or date is paid for, it should be automatic that the guy is going to get sex, and on his terms as well. The notion that they might put out any form of effort, and not get sex in return, terrifies them on a deep and profoundly fucked-in-the-head level.

  33. That’s because what MRAs, and especially PUAs, desire most fervently isn’t freedom from having to buy women dinner or otherwise pay for sex. It’s that they want freedom from uncertainty. Once a drink, dinner or date is paid for, it should be automatic that the guy is going to get sex, and on his terms as well.

    Yeah, I love that “woman-as-orgasm-vending-machine” mentality. That type of guy should just invest in a RealDoll and leave humans alone.

  34. Do all sandwiches need to end in marriage?

    If you liked it, should’ve put an onion ring on it.

  35. @Amnesia: If you liked it, should’ve put an onion ring on it.

    *SPITS COKE ZERO*

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    *hands you internet*

  36. If you liked it, should’ve put an onion ring on it.

    Ithiliana already gave you one internet, but that was so excellent that I think it warrants a bonus. +2 internets to you!

  37. Cliff:

    filled with resentment that they “have” to pleasure the woman and they “have” to cuddle afterwards, treating both as miserably humiliating obligations that exist only for humiliation’s sake.

    And, further, that women don’t like orgasms or cuddling, they just demand them to weed out men who aren’t worthy.

    I think I’ve seen MRAL or someone equally sensible make more or less that very argument.

    (Sadly, I’m sure there’s some confirmation-bias-tastic explanation they could come up with. Like, the cuddling was beta supplication to attempt to establish themselves as Nice Guys, and of course they secretly resented having to do it and secretly just wanted to fuck me.)

    Invoking secret motivations is a great answer to everything that seems to go against whatever theory of human behavior you’re trying to defend. The only thing as powerful is its somewhat baffling cousin “you don’t actually know what you really want.”

  38. “The notion that they might put out any form of effort, and not get sex in return, terrifies them on a deep and profoundly fucked-in-the-head level.”

    You probably just proved why men are likely better accountants than women. Credit = Debit, get it?

    “That type of guy should just invest in a RealDoll and leave humans alone.”

    And yet it is women , especially feminists , who are more prone to shaming men when they do decide to take that route . Such hypocrisy!

  39. Remember, a woman in a crappy relationship enjoys higher status in the Matrix than a woman without a relationship, all things being equal. They crave the validation they get from their female peers in the Matrix more than they even crave the romantic connection.

    Oh, Jesus Tapdancing Christ, the Matrix again. *Headdesk* It’s like those morons saw one movie aimed at teenagers, and have been imagining themselves to be Neo or that other guy ever since. I wonder, did these guys cut school, like, all the time? Because besides the fact that the idea behind “The Matrix” is completely unoriginal, its “science” is patently ridiculous.

    Or was that “shaming”? In which case, let me run and get my tiny violin.

  40. “That type of guy should just invest in a RealDoll and leave humans alone.”

    And yet it is women , especially feminists , who are more prone to shaming men when they do decide to take that route . Such hypocrisy!

    MRA’s should be the ones to complain about “shaming”. A man who “invests” in a RealDoll because he is a sad loser incapable of normal human interaction does better than a similar man who goes on an internet rampage against “teh bitchez” — but he is still a sad loser incapable of normal human interaction. Plus, it’s not an either/or situation: we usually “shame” guys who both get a RealDoll AND continue to be a nuisance to actual women. Tell you what — if he’s not THE most horrible and pathetic he could be, we’ll give him credit for that. ‘Kay?

  41. @Amused
    You know, if they’re not harming anyone and not being misogynist, then I don’t think they are “sad losers”. And as for the “incapable of normal human interaction” bit, that’s kinda ableist, there are people that have trouble relating to others that are nonetheless not assholes, so I think it’s not right to shame them for simply not being “normal”.

  42. Okay, Myoo, change that to “incapable of normal human interaction through their own fault and not due to a mental or neurological atypicality that’s beyond their control”.

  43. P.S. I only hope no one is going to theorize about them being autistic. Because, highly offensive as it is, such discussions generally gain traction.

  44. ABNOY: “The notion that they might put out any form of effort, and not get sex in return, terrifies them on a deep and profoundly fucked-in-the-head level.”

    You probably just proved why men are likely better accountants than women. Credit = Debit, get it?

    No, could you explain this to me? Use small words, if you have to; I’ll be patient.

    Because this is stupid. Interpersonal relations aren’t a monetary exchange. If the effort isn’t worth the candle, don’t do it.

    If someone is trying to buy sex with “dates and drinks and trinkets” and it’s not working… they should stop.

    Just as one isn’t entitled to a raise, or a promotion, because one buys the boss a drink at a social function, or gives him a present over the holidays, and sends a card on his birthday, one isn’t entitled to sex when one buys some random woman a drink.

    The “debit” is all in the head of the person who buys it. No transaction has actually been initiated.

    So, if you think you can, explain to me why I’m wrong. What obligation one person gets to impose on another with the act of buying an unsolicited object, and gifting it to them.

  45. Myoo: While I agree the phrasing wasn’t ideal, I think Amused’s direction avoids the egregious problem of saying those who get RealDolls, etc. are losers, ipso facto.

    It read to me as if someone who has failed to figure out how to interact with people, and decides to actually go their own way. I don’t think calling them “losers” is a great way to do it, but it’s not quite the same.

  46. ABNOY:

    You probably just proved why men are likely better accountants than women. Credit = Debit, get it?

    What credit? What debit?

  47. ABNOY, what credit and debit are you talking about? The whole idea is that women aren’t sex vending machines. Unless it’s been overtly negotiated, the effort doesn’t create a debt.

    I hate to compare women to objects, but for the purposes of illustration: Say I see you out somewhere and I like your watch. Can I give you $500 and take it off your wrist, without bothering to discuss it with you?

  48. Though again, among well-adapted people, sex isn’t about transactions at all. My point is that even on your own terms your apparent reasoning is flawed.

  49. I wonder what the ABNOYs of the world would think if someone (male or female) were to buy them a drink.

    Would they feel they had to put out for that person?

  50. I think they’d feel furious at this humiliating attempt to emasculate them.

    No, no, stupid woman, I’m supposed to be purchasing you.

  51. Do all sandwiches need to end in marriage?

    If you liked it, should’ve put an onion ring on it.

    Read this quote to my husband with no context. He is now bemused.

  52. “sex isn’t about transactions at all.”

    You’ve just contradicted the entirety of human history, right there! Why do you think prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession, eh?

    “My point is that even on your own terms your apparent reasoning is flawed.”

    Yeah right … not! Clearly, either truly “(non-feminized) men are from Mars, women are from Venus” or “(liberal) Americans are different from the rest of us” or both.

    “Would they feel they had to put out for that person?”

    Depends on how attractive they are vis a vis how drunk I am :D

  53. “sex isn’t about transactions at all.”

    You’ve just contradicted the entirety of human history, right there! Why do you think prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession, eh?

    There’s a pretty big difference between “there is nothing transactional about X for most people” and “it is impossible for X to involve a transaction.” It is obviously possible for pretty much any activity to be done in exchange for money. That doesn’t mean most activities usually ARE. Someone could decide they want to pay you to poop, but that doesn’t somehow mean pooping is transactional in normal circumstances.

    So, yes. If you hire a sex worker to have sex with you for money, that is absolutely transactional. I don’t believe anyone is arguing that it isn’t. What we are pointing out is that most people are not, in point of fact, sex workers by trade, and your “credit/debit” nonsense has nothing to do with how sex works for people who are not sex workers (or for sex workers outside of their work, either).

  54. Yeah right … not!

    A Michael Bluth-worthy retort.

  55. ABNOY:

    “My point is that even on your own terms your apparent reasoning is flawed.”

    Yeah right … not!

    That’s awesome, you just admitted being a thief.

  56. You’ve just contradicted the entirety of human history, right there! Why do you think prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession, eh?

    It’s not called “the world’s oldest and all people do it all the time profession.”

    Cooking food is a pretty old profession too, but that doesn’t mean that every time I bake cookies for my friends it’s a secret gambit for their money.

  57. I thought it was going to be a sex worker calling me out on “it’s not transactional.” I realized after posting that what I should have said was “it’s not always or inherently transactional” but I felt it was arrogant to make a third comment correcting my correction.

  58. Hershele: I thought about saying it, and than I decided it was silly to think anybody needed the precision “it’s not a transaction, except when people make it one”.

  59. ABNOY: I see you are an adherent of the, “I said I was right, so I win” school of dispute.

    Care to take a stab at actually responding to the post I put up?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,328 other followers

%d bloggers like this: