Category Archives: sex
>Quiz: Jezebel … or Andrea Dworkin?
>Here’s one easy way to tell if someone is from another planet. Specifically, Planet I’m-So-Crazed-by-My-Hatred-of-Feminism-That-My-Brain-Has-Imploded. They post comments on Reddit containing this sentence:
Hmm. I’m not what you’d call a big fan of Andrea Dworkin, but I have read her work, and unless my memory is faulty, I don’t recall her writing much about Ryan Gosling, lip stain, or baby giraffes.
So here’s a little quiz to see if you can tell the difference between Jezebel and Andrea Dworkin. Some of the quotes below come from recent Jezebel articles; some come from Dworkin. I also threw in a quote from Ryan Gosling as well, just for the hell of it. So who said what? (Answers below.)
a) Intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously, experienced and described as such, the act parlayed into the illuminated heights of religious duty and the dark recesses of morbid and dirty brutality.b) I freely admit that I watch some shitty, shitty television, and if it weren’t for my sense of shame, I’d probably watch a lot more of it. I can’t get enough of The Bachelor, which combines the most terrible aspects of dating, the weirdest aspects of arranged marriages, and sociopaths.c) The sexual colonialization of women’s bodies is a material reality: men control the sexual and reproductive uses of women’s bodies. In this system of male power, rape is the paradigmatic sexual act.d) Women’s bodies are possessed by men. Women are forced into involuntary childbearing because men, not women, control women’s reproductive functions. Women are an enslaved population–the crop we harvest is children, the fields we work are houses.e) Pie is just fine as a partner for the weak coffee of church basements, for Thanksgiving, for dessert at a roadside cafe in Harmony, Minneosta, but for high falutin’ snacking, you cannot beat the elegant convenience of the cupcake.f) If I eat a huge meal and I can get the girl to rub my belly, I think that’s about as romantic as I can think of.
ANSWER KEY: What, are you a fucking idiot? Oh, ok, the last one is the Ryan Gosling quote. I really, really, really hope you can figure out the rest on your own.
>You mean coitus?
>
 |
| The post-coital Dude and Maude |
Let’s take a break from misogyny for a moment to take a look into the wild and wacky world of homophobia. Sexy, sexy homophobia. By which I mean this attempt, by homophobe-con Robert George and two colleagues to explain why only heterosexual penis-in-vagina sex counts as real, proper sex:
In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one—they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together—in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction.
So: No gay sex. No lesbian sex. No blow jobs. No dry humping. No finger-fucking. No pegging. No happy endings.
If you’re interested, Alas, a blog’s Barry Deutsch offers a detailed critique of the paper in which this wondrous quote appears over on FamilyScholars.org; George et al reply here.
All this talk of coitus reminds me of one of my many favorite exchanges in The Big Lebowski, between Maude Lebowski and The Dude:
MAUDE: Do you like sex, Mr. Lebowski?
DUDE: Excuse me?
MAUDE: Sex. The physical act of love. Coitus. Do you like it?
DUDE: I was talking about my rug.
MAUDE: You’re not interested in sex?
DUDE: You mean coitus?
MAUDE: I like it too. It’s a male myth about feminists that we hate sex. It can be a natural, zesty enterprise. But unfortunately there are some people–it is called satyriasis in men, nymphomania in women–who engage in it compulsively and without joy.
DUDE: Oh, no.
Talk dirty to me, Maude Lebowski!
(Thanks to Amanda Marcotte’s twitter and alicublog for alerting me to George’s crazy quote.)
>Applied Slutonomics: The Vaginal Supply Curve
>
 |
| Vaginal supply and demand. |
Apparently sluts aren’t simply, you know, dirty whores. They’re also sadly lacking a real work ethic. And no wonder, because sluttery is evidently as easy as falling off a log. Onto a bed. Naked. At least according to someone calling himself Reality 2010 on The Spearhead’s message boards.
[I]t takes tremendous effort and or a tremendous talent or a god-given gift to be a ‘stud’ while it takes absolutely zero effort to be a slut. All it takes for a woman to be a slut is to just lie on her back. Wow. What an achievement.
Sluts are apparently also in need of a refresher course in economics. They don’t appear to understand the basics of supply and demand. By giving away their pussy too readily to too many men, they are decreasing its value!
There’s also the fact that a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset – (as if you would actually want a woman based on her petty, lazy, confrontational and flaky personality or parasitical worthlessness in the workplace) so to mindlessly give away the one and only thing you have of any value has a much broader pathetic implication than that of gender & sex regardless of whatever it is.
As you can see from the helpful diagram here, increasing the supply of vagina — that is, moving the vagina supply curve from S0 to S1 — both decreases the price of vagina and increases the amount of vagina consumed, bringing us to a new slutquilibrium.
I mean, come on, ladies, that’s pretty basic Slutonomics.
It’s a good thing that vagina is a renewable resource, or else we’d all be fucked. Figuratively, not literally.
>Campus creep out
>
 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:
Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.
Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!
Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here.
>All the single mothers
>
 |
| It’s the one in the middle that’s the problem. |
Fellas, be careful out there, lest you run across the single gravest threat to modern man, and probably civilization itself: the single mom. These money-hungry, baby-hungry monsters will seduce you and abandon you, after extracting from you the magical substance that allows them to pop forth babies that you will have to pay for forever. Young or old, straight or lesbian, they all want your sperm and your money.
At least that’s the argument of a dude calling himself The Fourth Planet on the LoveShack.org message boards. I’ve put some especially good bits in bold.
[T]he time has come to look at male sexuality as a weakness that makes men vulnerable to all kinds of predator. It’s a sexual vulnerability that makes you prey to baby mama or baby-hungry women. …
Your sexuality is tolerated only when it’s necessary to provide young women, long past menopausal women, lesbians, single mothers by choice … with children. In other words, only for as long as it serves women’s needs to satisfy their baby urges. …
Women’s sexuality gives them, and the state, almost unlimited power to control men. As long as women are free to use their power of sex to exploit men, then all the things we resent in women will continue and get worse.
Our weakness for pussy is … being used to destroy us. …
You must reject single mothers because she represents all of the things that destroy men, our children, our families, and our communities. …
Today, women only engage in sex for as long as it takes to establish a claim on a man’s resources. In other words, through marrying and divorcing him or having a man’s child out of wedlock. They want the benefits that that provides in marriage, but not the commitment to one man. That’s because they want to be free to use their sexuality for themselves and be free to exploit other men for their resources.
Damn those sneaky, sexy ladies and their sneaky, sexy sexiness! If only there was a way to get rid of all desire altogether.
>Hey ladies!
>
Actual message sent to a women identifying herself as a feminist on an actual dating site, by someone who evidently thought it would totally charm her into hopping in bed with him:
Against my better judgment upon seeing the ‘f’ word, I read your profile in full. I generally eat feminists for breakfast. My favorite meal is a third-wave feminist with a sprinkling of postmodern-pretentiousness (2% caramel version)— quite the delicacy. Anyway, we have absolutely fuck-all in common, I can’t see us ever getting along, and the sex would probably be some sort of power struggle for dominance. I honestly don’t even know why you bother with feminism.
Nothing turns the ladies on more than condescending hostility! I found this on A(n)nals of Online Dating, a treasure trove of interpersonal internet douchebaggery. (Thanks to Amanda Marcotte for alerting me to the existence of this site.)
>Sperm: It’s What Women Crave!
>
 |
| They want your sperm. |
Remember that scene in Dr. Strangelove in which General Jack D. Ripper starts ranting about a “international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids?” Gen. Ripper, of course, was worried about the purported evils of fluoridation. Also, he was a fictional character. But now the “manosphere” has done him one better. A recent post on the Muslim Patriarch blog suggests, with utmost sincerity, that women never truly love men — they just love our most precious bodily fluid. Sperm.
Yep. Fellas, apparently we’re nothing but giant sperm repositories to the ladies. So what evidence has the Muslim Patriarch, aka Samvel Arshavir, got for his novel theory? He claims that his wife seems to treat him worst after the two of them have sex, when his “sperm reserves” are largely depleted. (Emphasis added.)
On the days immediately following an ejaculation, my wife loses all love and respect for me. She treats me like garbage. … I used to think that I have done something wrong for her to so suddenly lose all love for me. …
When I finally understood what was going on, when I understood that it all depended on the amount of sperm stored inside of me, I saw the humor in this love that everyone talks about. … Her love is just a way that nature tells me I have a lot of sperm in my reserves.
Arshavir notes that he hasn’t exactly done the scientific experimentation to prove his new theory. But he has made some careful observations:
My idea of ‘sperm reserve’ isn’t related to anything that scientists say. It is something I have found with experience. If you ejaculate twice or more in one day, the next day your reserves will be around 10%. Women have two terms for this level: douche bag and loser. On day 2 your reserves will go up to 25%. Day 3 they will be at 40%. Day 4 at 50%. As your levels pass 50%, women will start respecting you and finding you attractive. At around two to three weeks of abstinence your levels will have gone to 90%. And when you get a wet dream … you can then know that your levels reached 100%. The night before the wet dream you will be at your most irresistible-to-women phase.
As a former horny teenage boy, I respectfully must disagree with some of his calculations here: the male body seems capable of producing almost endless quantities of sperm upon demand.
But this is a question for the scientists amongst us to debate. Arshavir has bigger fish to fry. His revelations about ladies and sperm have led him to question some of the most fundamental tenets of heterosexual love.
When I have 10 days worth of sperm saved inside of me, when my wife wants to make love to me three times a day, it doesn’t any longer make me feel good about myself, because I now see that it is not an accomplishment. It is not because I am an awesome guy. It is just her animal nature responding to my biology.
This knowledge has freed me from the biggest fraud of our age. The fraud that tells us men to seek happiness in a woman’s love. What a joke.
Ah, but there is a complication here. Unlike sperm-loving women, Arshavir argues, men still can feel love for the ladies. True love, not just crude ovary lust. The only trouble is that those sperm-loving creatures don’t really deserve our love.
Ours is the spiritual love for another being. Theirs is the love for our biology. Their love for our sperm reserves could have easily been a love for big muscles. In both cases it is a purely physical love–nothing that deserves our spiritual love.
So where can a poor fellow find true love today? Dudes.
And I now realize why men like W. S. Maugham become homosexual after delving deep into the nature of women. Once you know that romantic love doesn’t make sense to women … the next logical step is to find a man to love.
If you look for true love, you can only find it in another man.
Wait — “another man?” Seriously? That sounds a little — what’s the word I’m looking for here? — gay. Isn’t this blog titled “Muslim Patriarch?” But don’t worry. Our intrepid patriarchal blogger hasn’t gone all gay on us. He is quick to add the obligatory “NO HOMO,” in the parlance of our times. Love other men, but just do it in a totally non-gay way.
The idea of having sex with another man is utterly disgusting to me. The mistake of men like Maugham is that they fail to separate love from sex. …The correct thing to do as I see it is to save our deep, romantic and spiritual feelings of love for male friends, while maintaining sexual relationships with women. …
Apparently, men are from Mars, women are for penis.
[A] man’s romantic love is completely wasted on women. … Had you used your love on another man, you’d have gotten a loving friend for life. With a woman, no matter how much love you spend on her, her love for you will be no more than your sperm-reserve levels. …
A healthy culture would have taught us men to love other men, and would have taught us not to take women seriously.
This man’s wife is lucky indeed.
EDIT: More on ladies and their sperm-love here.
>G.I. Jane, You Ignorant Slut
>
 |
| Typical female soldier, apparently. |
So the fine fellows on The Spearhead have taken up the issue of women in the military.
DevilDog, a Marine, started off the discussion with a clear statement of his central thesis, that most women in the military are “USELESS … god damn whores.” Here are some of the highlights, by which I mean lowlights. (In this and following comments I’ve bolded the bits that grabbed my attention.)
[T]he majority of the women in the military… ARE USELESS! … women cannot pass the PT standards for the average male, okay, so they lower em for women, many women cannot even pass the lowered standards, they don’t get kicked out though …
These god damn whores walk around with an over-inflated ego because of this and think they’re GI Janes who can kick anyones ass… A lot of these girls are ugly as SH!T, but are given a lot of attention because we’re all horny and wanna fuck. We call ‘em desert queens, a 4/10 Female gets attention and thinks shes a 9/10..
You guys wouldn’t believe some of the stories I have: women getting gangbanged by 10 Marines, same woman who has a Husband and children. Women blowing officers for privileges, while her family is at home.. Believe me, IT’S RAMPANT. …
Oh and SO MANY F***ING WOMEN CHEAT on their husbands while they’re deployed fighting in Afghan. Unfaithful whores.
We MEN have fought for thousands of years, and continue to fight and protect, then some fucking slut comes along and does 1/100th of the job we do, and is praised by the white knights, media, and general american population as a f***ing GI Jane empowered goddess and shit.
Taking up the contrary position was … well, nobody. One brave soul stood up to say that, while he basically agreed with DevilDog’s post, he noted that on a trip he made to an air force base that “I expected the women to look like blocks, but I was quickly disabused of the expectation. The women were overwhelmingly good looking.” This small divergence from the majority view earned his comment 61 downvotes.
A few others weighed in with thoughts on women in the corporate world. According to Keyster,
There always seems to be a few decent women who “get it”, but typically most of them get very little done and stir up trouble when they try to work. Their blatant incompetence is always excused because they’re women. If you complain about them, you’ll be the one who’s punished. You have to tolerate them, cover for them and pretend they’re good at what they do.
39 upvotes for this bit of wisdom. Joe added:
I’m not in the military but I do work with a lot of women. … [T]hey clearly do not have comparable problem solving ability or inclination. When it comes to figuring out how to go about something they’re terrible. Their strategy is always to bring more people in, have more conference calls, spend more time talking.
50 upvotes for this one. So women are useless in the military or in the civilian workplace. What about in the home? Nothingbutthetruth, thinking outside the box, suggested that if men were physically capable of giving birth “I am sure they would [do] a better job [as wives and mothers] than women as with everything.”
So, in summary: women bad, men good, even at giving birth (if they could).
Oh, by the way, my title for this post is a Saturday Night Live reference. A really old SNL reference. Fuck, I’m old.
Also, if you decide to read the whole depressing Spearhead discussion, you will notice someone posting there as “David F.” That person is not me.
>Faking it
>
 |
| Should this be the MGTOW logo? |
So some researchers at the University of Kansas asked a couple of hundred college students some very personal questions, and as a result we now know that lots of guys fake orgasms. 25% of the guys reported that they’d faked an orgasm at least once, often as a quick way to bring sex to an end. Roughly half the women were orgasm-fakers.
One college newspaper reporting on the study quoted a sex counselor who suggested a couple of possible reasons for guys to fake it: kinky internet porn, which allegedly makes “vanilla” sex seem boring, and antidepressants. The first explanation I don’t really buy, but the second makes perfect sense. Antidepressants are prescribed more than ever these days, and many of the most widely-used have relatively common sexual side effects — one of them being increased difficulty reaching orgasm.
That explanation doesn’t fly with W.F. Price over at The Spearhead. His theory, set forth in a recent post on the study: men can’t come because so many women are ugly, boring, smelly creatures who make strange noises. Forget Paxil and porn. Instead, just remember that (emphasis added):
some women are lousy in bed, just plain unattractive or boring. One sexuality counselor suggests that men are becoming “harder to please,” yet doesn’t seem to consider the fact that young women are possibly harder to look at and listen to than ever.
The simple presence of a female – even a naked one – is not sufficient to arouse a man, but today’s women may not have internalized that fact. There are a number of things that can turn a guy off during sex, including unpleasant odors, unpleasant sights, loose flesh, annoying or ridiculous noises, a woman’s lack of interest or enthusiasm or even a woman’s overenthusiasm/dominant behavior.
I’m not going to try to unpack every last bit of he-man woman-hating in those two paragraphs, but … “annoying and ridiculous noises?” Huh? Are women making fart sounds with their mouths? Practicing bird calls? Shouting out instructions in Klingon? Honking bicycle horns like Harpo Marx? I have no idea what sort of women Price is going out with, but I’m pretty sure most guys like the sounds women make during sex.
The other culprit in Orgasm-gate? Our “obsession with the female orgasm.” Apparently men these days are forced by unfair social norms to … actually care if the woman they’re having sex with enjoys herself. Even if she’s, you know, ugly.
Lots of young men feel pressured to have sex with women they are not all that attracted to, and today they are pressured to perform due to the obsession with the female orgasm, which sometimes results in men exhausting themselves by drilling away for unnaturally long periods of time. This can have a desensitizing effect and lead a man to want to simply end it in one way or another. And if she can fake it to get it over with, why can’t he? … Actually, when sex becomes a chore for men and all about pleasing a demanding woman, it should be expected that some of them will look for excuses to cut it short.
Somehow I suspect that sex with guys who think like this is always a chore, for everyone involved.
>He’s quite the Caulksman
>
 |
| Hello, lover! (When they say “All-Purpose,” they MEAN IT!) |
The Happy Bachelors of the Happy Bachelors Forum may not be so happy, but you can’t say they’re not ingenious — and thrifty! In a recent discussion of masturbation, onezero4u asked
anybody tried the “fleshlight” before????
i made a homemade one out of half a empty caulk tube, about 10″ of bicycle inner tube to line the inside & some duct tape to secure it on the outside. dammmmm i didnt leave the house for a month after that.
That’s right. He turned a caulk tube into a … cock tube.
I also like how he specifies he used ten inches of inner tube. Because this guy having sex with a caulk tube wants you to know he’s hung like Ron Jeremy!
Great. Now I’ve got to get THAT image out of my head.
Some MRA/MGTOWs sure are obsessed with fleshlights.
