The dude at What Men Are Saying About Women – you may recall him as the inventor of the MRA two-dot period – remains my favorite illiterate MRA blogger. To be fair, the illiteracy is really just the icing on the cake of his ridiculous opinions. In a recent post he wrote about a new study that purports to show that there is more sex in countries with greater gender equality. (Probably true; the study itself, probably bullshit.)
Here’s the two-dot blogger trying to make some sort of point about it all:
Feminists have always promoted shagging as some type of recommended behaviour that should be allowed at random without limitation or indeed have any limits attached to it. Probably explains why most of the feminist mangina sites have little tags like “I support Porn” or “I support BDSM” as they would heartily agree that the promotion of free sex on demand would allow them unlimited access especially if there is a feminist female involved. Brainwashing does apparently have it positive side..
What surprises me the most is the lack of information concerning sexually transmitted diseases of all types. Those nasty disease like HIV or those others that munch your body at random. Not really something you want to be told after a night of debauchery with some slut feminist ( they promote themselves to be sluts now) willingly spreads her legs for some horizontal tango..
So apparently having more sex is bad because feminists..
And then you get AIDS..
And sentences should always be ended with not one but two periods..
@ Kendra
One advantage of being really old is that I got my public school sex ed back in the 70s, before the fundies launched their counter-attack. Not only did we learn all about various forms of birth control, we even had a guest speaker come in from Planned Parenthood to talk about the services they provided.
The shitty rose analogy reminds me of the MRA idea of a “used up vagina”. I guess they think that once a woman has enough sex, the vagina closes up shop and develops a force field to prevent any more piv sex. If the woman has frequent sex in a marriage, however, it is impossible to “use it up”.
@Johnny Pez, I think there is already some backlash against the fundies’ attack on sex ed. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging back to a comprehensive approach like you had in the 70’s.
I can’t believe I’m sharing this on the internet but…um…I caught an STI once? I used condoms and everything, but stuff happens. Anyways, one dose of antibiotics, and I was good as new!! So…um…it wasn’t a big deal?
I don’t understand why there’s such shame and stigma around STI’s. People catch diseases from human contact all the time. We pick up colds and flu from handshakes and hugs, but nobody is saying that getting a handshake makes you dirty and sinful.
Hey! That’s what I did.
@Simone Lovelace:
That’s because shaking hands isn’t dirty and sinful! (Though it is a gateway contact, so don’t go shaking hands all willy nilly) No, if you catch an STI, it means you’ve had sex!!! Oh horrors!
*clutches pearls*
I love how feminists are the cause of everything. This is just silly. For males there has always been that push for them to be promiscuous so what’s he REALLY saying here? He’s REALLY talking about only women. That’s the part that has changed is women’s sexual freedom, and yes, it’s wrought with ironies, but none of this sits at the feet of feminism.
I argue with crazy anti-abortionists sometimes, and when you ask pointed questions and pin them down you find out, it’s not about the babies’ lives. It’s about a woman not being tied to fate and the crazies wanting to control that portion of society with the sword of Damocles hanging over the female head. They should be scared all the time, they should be the gatekeepers and we can’t expect anything from men, right? This is just more lamenting from someone that recognizes the loss of social control over the woman’s body and life, and is expressing it in a way he finds most acceptable. The holes are there to peek through in the writing tho. It makes no sense. Men are not babies or victims of ignorance completely unaware of how to handle STDs and diseases. Helpless balls in a pinball machine woman.
Feminists only push for the idea that if women want to have sex they are not to be judged by a separate standard than men are. I mean it would be nice if nobody judged anyone, how about that? So he’s lamenting that and also pointing out that “OH they’re calling themselves sluts now” like aww shucks that shaming might not work anymore.
Whoah that’s a whole ‘nother topic. I hate that word. The patriarchal negativity will never be extricated from it, so I hope it does some good with shamers like this guy. He’s probably just searching for another term. .Sex is not bad and the word “slut” keeps it in that category. But ok, not trying to open a can of worms here, just noting that this appears to be a small victory for the “proud slut” crowd, you’ve stolen this dude’s thunder Heh.
Anyway, he’s for the social control of women, Simple.
Kendra: I went to public schools in the late 80s to mid 90s. Maybe michigan had an excellent sex ed program. or maybe we just had an excellent teacher. Either way, I was very, very lucky.
I heard a slightly less heinous variant of the rose metaphor, the “sticky tape” metaphor, where the teacher takes a piece of tape and goes around sticking it to everyone’s arm and taking it off. By the end, it won’t stick anymore.
This is not quite as bad because at least it’s implying that having more relationship changes you and your attitudes, rather than changing other peoples’ attitudes towards you, and it is true that relationships change you (just not that they make you unable to have more relationships). Still there’s a rather obvious rebuttal: “I’m not a piece of tape.”
Also, neither of them have symptoms that could be reasonably described as “munching.”
Perhaps if you were to have unprotected sex with Pac-Man?
Yeah, Katz, but then they go with the “oxytocin” argument, which states that if women keep giving their oxytocin away to random men, they won’t have any left for their husband. Even though oxytocin is a renewable resource, like estrogen, or dopamine… They also fail to mention that men produce oxytocin and vasopressin during sexy times as well. Nary a word about how men should conserve theirs.
There are a lot of conservative females who are really fond of this shaming tactic, actually. I’ve even heard “difference feminists” try to dredge it up… scary.
If oxytocin worked that way, mothers would love their second and third children less and cuddlesluts would lose the ability to feel warm and connected from cuddles. Just saying.
pi male: Maybe if Pacmanitis was an STI…
I’ve never heard the oxytocin thing.
The oxytocin myth relies on the premise that women (people? No, probably women) can’t sustain multiple meaningful relationships, even if they aren’t at the same time. Like, “careful, if you bang that guy you might fall in love with him and then even after you break up and move on you’ll never love anyone as well again.”
@Katz This is a decent summary if you’re interested.
Whoops, link fail: http://sexreally.com/the-blog/oxytocin-pseudoscience-hook-hormone
This is my first time hearing the Oxyconton argument.
And I want to puke.
One of the main argument of Susan Walsh against the casual sex is oxytocin.
Even if that were true about never loving as well again, wouldn’t it mean that mean that the awe inspiring love you felt at first would fade over time as your oxytocin decreased? If it’s the case that you can have one great love affair that will decay with time or you can have multiple relationships that have decreasing passion, I’ll take the second option. It seems less depressing and you get to have sex with more people.
@NMWNG How am I not surprised?
@Pi Male: Nope! you see, oxytocin actually works on entirely different principles then any other biological molecule! It’s actually permanent, and never gets broken down and replaced. Unless you fall out off love, in which case it gets thrown out, and your body can never make it the same ever again! Trufax.
@Victoria von Syrus
” and the expectation was that a woman would be sexually exclusive with her husband.”
Women being loyal to their husbands, how appauling and anti-feminist.
——————–
@Alex_P
“Yes, because AIDS tends to triumph in countries with loose sexual mores and high indexes of gender equality…
Jesus fuck, it’s like these people have no concept of empirical evidence.”
I’m guessing the emperical evidence that STDs are much more rampant in countries with loose sexual mores and high indexes of gender equality would be the emperical evidence.
——————-
@ozymandias42
“Probably no sex until marrage and then monogamy after? Or maybe no sex until a committed relationship hopefully leading to marriage?”
Ewww, loyalty, fidelity, honor; it’s so anti-feminist it just makes ya wanna wretch.
——————
@no more mr nice guy
“Before the sexual revolution men were not marrying at 40 after having sex with 200 women, they married at the beginning of their twenties with limited sexual experience.”
Men and women being loyal and experiencing sex togther. What are men thinking?
——————-
@Johnny Pez
“One advantage of being really old is that I got my public school sex ed back in the 70s”
Strange how the world managed to get along just fine before Sex Ed. Of course marriage was till death do us part, STDs were unheard of, unborn children had the right to live. Honor, integrity, lotalty, fidelity and all that old timey stuff; ya know the bedrock of a healthy thriving society. But we have feminism now.
——————–
@ozymandias42
“I dunno, I’ve been throwing away my value and honor quite avidly”
No shit sherlock, you’re what’s called a pump and dump. You just wanna be praised for it, good luck with that.
———————
@katz
“This is not quite as bad because at least it’s implying that having more relationship changes you and your attitudes, rather than changing other peoples’ attitudes towards you, and it is true that relationships change you (just not that they make you unable to have more relationships).”
Well except for the emperical evidence that shows for every time a woman fucks a different man her ability to form a lasting relationship with a man drop percentagewise. Of course feminists feel this isn’t true so…….ideology.
Aw, Mr. Slave is upset that women are being more choosy and aren’t choosing him! My heart, it aches.
NWO, you are full of it. You just read selectively and get nasty with people.
NWOslave, please, could you source this claim:
“Well except for the emperical evidence that shows for every time a woman fucks a different man her ability to form a lasting relationship with a man drop percentagewise.”
I would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.
@Vermin
“NWOslave, please, could you source this claim:”
First off, it’s pointless due to feminists notorious ability to discount anything that goes against their failed destructive ideology. Secondly, do your own research ya lazy slob.