Categories
antifeminism cock blockade crackpottery men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel sex vaginas

Bla bla pussy cartel bla bla cock blockade

Don't put the pussy on a pedestal. Unless it's this pussy.

The blogger Fidelbogen likes to think of himself as some sort of grand theoretician of “counter-feminist” thinking. Which means that his posts are usually far too long and ponderous to read, much less to write about. His ideas – at least judging from the few posts of his I’ve had the patience to wade through — are really not much more advanced than your typical MRA; he’s just much more pretentious (and long-winded) about it.

He is, in other words, the sort of guy who could take 3000 words to explain the rather basic MRA notion that women control men with their vaginas.

I mean that quite literally. Our excitable MGTOWer friend MarkyMark recently drew his readers’ attention to a 5-year-old post by Fidelbogen with the enigmatic title “Ideas Which Go Against the Grain,” which offers, yep, a 3000-word précis of the evils of pussy power. Perhaps against my better judgement, I’ve decided to give it a detailed look. Strap in!

I’ll give him credit for one thing: despite his vague title, Fidelbogen states his thesis quite plainly at the start:

Female sexuality is raised high upon an altar like a golden calf. Male sexuality is looked upon as a ratty old kitchen chair with a cracked vinyl seat, under suspicion of mildew.

Well, ok, not the very start. Right about here:

This disparity, this imbalance, this . . . . inequality, accounts for most of women’s power over men. By extension, it accounts for a great deal of feminism’s leverage in the realm of gender politics.

In other words: vagina=power.

I leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about the mysteries of the eternal feminine, and to the psychoanalytic priesthood to plumb its shadowy depths. As a political tactician and theorist, it is my cold-blooded task merely to figure out how the world works, blabbity blabbity bloo.

Ok, those last three words are my paraphrase of his argument. Focus, Fidelbogen, focus!

The higher valuation assigned to female sexuality generates a seller’s market for women in the so-called game of love. That is how the world works; women do not queue or cluster in quest of men’s favors. No, it is nearly always men who act this way around women.

And this leads to, yep, the dreaded Pussy Cartel:

Deprived of euphemism, the case is this: women have cornered the market on sexual intercourse, and are able to dictate the price and the accompanying politics much as OPEC might set the terms for oil. …

Understand, that the higher valuation of female sexuality translates into both female power and loss of male power. Since female supremacy is feminism’s driving ambition, it makes sense that the women’s movement has undertaken to siphon power away from men using every siphon hose imaginable.

Normally, I would assume this last bit was some kind of sniggering reference to blowjobs. As Fidelbogen seems to be utterly without a sense of humor, I have to assume it’s merely a belabored metaphor.

So how do the evil feminists siphon away male power? By driving along some sort of road:

Certain lanes, deeply rutted by age-old usage, serve handily along feminism’s route to power.

So after siphoning their way down this road, we (and the evil feminists) arrive at what I’ll call (to keep Fidelbogen’s metaphor going) “Courtship Lane.”

The word “courtship” is revealing. Men are the “courtiers”, which is to say lackeys or sycophants who wait upon the pleasure of their “lord”. In courtship, more often than otherwise, women hold all the cards. Feminists, being women, are well aware of this. But they are also aware that the realm of courtship, while being women’s greatest zone of power over men, is likewise a critical link in the chain of power which binds men specifically to the designs of feminist domination.

After a bit of empty rhetoric, Prof. F continues:

Most women are aware of their superior sexual bargaining power. And many women have been politicized to some degree (more or less) by feminist ideology. This latter group will most certainly carry their politicized outlook into the sexual bargaining arena, and in their minds both feminist ideology and the knowledge of their age-old power will meld together into a troublesome sort of hybrid entity.

Fidelbogen, alas, does not take the opportunity to name this dastardly “hybrid entity.” Let’s just call it THE FEMIGINA!! (In all caps, with two exclamation points.)

At this point, Prof. F loses what little steam his argument has, and begins prattling about this and that and the evils of feminism. I will attempt to convey the gist of it with the following excerpts. In order to truly capture the flavor of it, I will replace the traditional ellipses – used to indicate excised material – with the phrase “blabbity blabbity.”

Blabbity blabbity to gauge the extent of feminist indoctrination among the female population would be like measuring the spread of a gaseous substance with a rubber band. Blabbity blabbity [f]eminism has blabbity blabbity secured a tremendous power over men by means of a momentous bio-political conjunction. Blabbity moral corona of the ideology blabbity female noosphere blabbity blabbity feminist-tinted spectacles blabbity blabbity the path lies clear before us.

And then he comes to his point:

Men should cease to value female sexuality beyond a certain fixed rate. Once the cost exceeds this rate, the value should fall to zero—leaving the purveyors in their deserted market stall.

Yep. That’s right. He’s talking about what we here on Man Boobz know as the Cock Blockade.

Blabbity blabbity it would go against nature blabbity blabbity laborious gritting of teeth. Blabbity blabbity supremely human accomplishment. Blabbity blabbity we are more than simply animals.

And he comes to another point:

Devaluation of female sexuality would alter the balance of power between the sexes. There would come a point where a man, any man, could make the personal choice to cast loose from women altogether—in all but the peripheral aspects of his life.

Go your own way!

Blabbity blabbity men would need to cut each other some slack blabbity blabbity stop competing with other men in the customary arena where female flesh is the prize. Blabbity blabbity. The question “are ya getting any?”, along with the adolescent mindset it signals, would be out of place in this altered scheme of things.

And this would put the ladies in their place – standing lonely in their vagina stalls, gamely trying to interest men in their now worthless vaginas.

Women would be the courtiers, the ones who queue and cluster. Deny women their fundamental age-old power, and feminism would find itself reeling in shock as though from a serious blood loss. The best way for men to free themselves from the boa-constrictor grip of feminism is to free themselves from the power of women.

So now I have the image of lady boa-constrictors with head wounds standing in a line, displaying their boa-constrictor vaginas with a sort of desperate hopefulness to the wholly uninterested men who pass by.

After a good deal of blathering so tedious it’s not even worth quoting in part, Fidelbogen begins to ponder the power of “no.”

[M]en must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.

Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default.

I feel a bit of a breeze myself, but I think that’s just because Prof. F is talking a lot of wind.

Let’s move from breezes to earthquakes:

The changes I am discussing here would amount to a tectonic realignment of unquestionably world-historic magnitude. An inversion of the Victorian pedestal.

The old way of doing things, Prof. F tells us,

I have decided to call it the pussy paradigm—a somewhat vulgar expression to be sure, but it has the common touch!

Ironically, the common touch is something hetero dudes will have to become masters at if they swear off the ladies. Prof. F continues:

So, this pussy paradigm belongs in the category of things which predate feminism’s arrival in the world. And when the feminists got here, they saw in a flash where their advantage lay, and they closed in, and they threw a harness around it.

They threw a harness around a paradigm?

The heart of feminism is female supremacism, and the heart of female supremacism is the pussy paradigm. Remember this if you remember nothing else.

So what does Prof. F call his pussy-optional way of doing things? The “optionality paradigm.” That is, dudes can have sex with women or not, whatever they want, and shouldn’t pressure one another to score with the ladies.  (I’m not quite sure how, in Professor F’s economic model, the price of pussy can be reduced to zero if some dudes are still interested in it, but I confess that I only sort of skimmed that bit of his post. Life is short, and Fidelbogen’s posts are long.)

More blabbity blabbity:

The future, in theory, should see a migration of the optionality paradigm toward the center of the map within hetero-normative male culture, along with a corresponding displacement of the pussy paradigm toward the perimeter. This would exactly reverse the present disposition of forces. The optionality paradigm would, at that point, become the ruling paradigm.

After reading this turgid turd of a paragraph , I decided to cut my losses and skip directly to Professor F’s grand conclusion. Which turns out to be neither grand nor much of a conclusion:

My endeavor in writing has been to flesh it out somewhat. To write about it is to give it a form, to make the inchoate choate, to fashion an anchor of words that can hold things usefully in place so we can discuss them, if need be, with a view toward implementation and concrete action. The time to draft contingency plans is now. Put these ideas in your thinking cap and ponder their utility.

Even better, put them in a small bag, weigh it down with rocks, and toss it into the nearest large body of water.

Jesus, this turned into a long post. Still, it’s only about half the length of Prof. F’s original.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

482 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ozymandias42
9 years ago

So he’s saying that men have to have bodily autonomy and not be socially pressured into having sex they don’t want to have? Great. Welcome to the fight against rape culture; here’s your sword and shield!

It’s the bit where he thinks feminists disagree with his overall goal that makes me puzzled.

ozymandias42
9 years ago

Also, the wimminz-get-stuff-by-being-female plan only works for conventionally attractive women. Butch chicks, fat chicks, middle-aged (or GASP! old) chicks, chicks with conventionally unattractive facial features… they’re all FUCKED under this system.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Ozy – I suppose I wouldn’t know firsthand, but I think even drop-dead-gorgeous women don’t get that much for their looks unless they’re in an explicit “sugar daddy” relationship. I think it’s generally along the lines of “free drinks,” not “free BMW.”

Moewicus (Space Pope Sextus XVI)
Moewicus (Space Pope Sextus XVI)
9 years ago

As the new Men’s Rights Space Pope, I declare Fidelbogen, renamed St. Fidelbogenus, the official philosopher of Men’s Rights. Like Thomas Aquinas, his turgid works belabor every dumb point of doctrine in exceedingly pompous fashion. However, I must take issue with some of St. Fidelbogenus’s statements:

Feminists, being women…

Unfortunately this is incorrect. Feminists are men and women. St. Fidelbogenus’s arguments remain unaltered, however.

They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.

Okay, maybe his arguments aren’t unaltered. I would quote an eleventh century French writer stating that it is acceptable for a noble man to rape a peasant woman if he desires her, but I don’t have it at hand. Historically women did not have the ability to say “no”.

So, questionable premises, shaky conclusions. St. Fidelbogenus’s status as official philosopher remains unaltered.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Holly… Don’t forget the instant help with broken tires and food just for crying.

Bostonian
Bostonian
9 years ago

I have not seen anything described by MRAs in reality. In my social circle, both genders pay for dates, so not even a free meal most of the time.

Of course, I do not know anyone in a Sugar Parent relationship situation.

Moewicus
Moewicus
9 years ago

I don’t think St. Fidelbogenus is referring to the acquisition of material goods, at least not directly. I think he is referring to how women gained voting rights by telling the men hanging out at the base of their pussy pedestals that they wanted to vote. That’s how that happened, right?

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
9 years ago

Wait, Susan Walsh and her theory of slutonomics said that too much sex is making the market value of pussy go down. Fidelbogen says it’s overvalued and a bubble is going to burst. They can’t both be right. It’s almost as if sexual relationships are nothing at all like the stock market.

Ginmar Rienne
9 years ago

You know, it’s a pretty simple principle: women often don’t want to have sex with men who are assholes, who treat them like….well, MRAL treats pretty much anybody. I’m sure to MRAs that’s cruel, manipulative and controlling, but seriously—-the idea of fucking somebody who hates you is called a ‘hate fuck’ for a reason.

Then there’s the assholes who disguise what they’re doing with a sneered, “But I was JUST joking, where’s your sense of humor?”

Also, now that I think about it, is MRAL actually quoting The Empire Strikes Back? Doesn’t Han call Leia something very similar? Yeah, romantic comedy.

There’s a big difference between Cary Grant and Roslyn Russell, sparring as equals, and even a revered character like Han Solo, using some pretty sexist tropes on Leia, who George Lucas turns into a literal slave later on in the movie. After all, Han shouts at her flatly that ‘she could use a good kiss!’ Imagine what that line would have been like if they weren’t going for the PG rating. I was still an impressionable teen w hen I saw that and even that pinged my radar as being wrong. I wasn’t even a baby feminist then.

schism
schism
9 years ago

Doesn’t Han call Leia something very similar?

“Your Highnessness.” That said, Leia was a princess (technically), so you could say Han was being irreverent.

As for the MRAL vote, I also bet he’ll be back within hours under a pseudonym, somehow having convinced himself that no one will draw connections between two handles ranting about “FEMNINIAST FUCJKSS.”

ozymandias42
9 years ago

In my social circle most dates are free (watch a movie together) or cheap (go out to eat at a cheap TexMex fast food place together) and split equally between the two, with the exception of dudes who are under the impression that if they don’t pay it will impugn their manliness, which is their own fault really.

Ginmar Rienne
9 years ago

Yeah, the “You could use a good kiss!” was a lot worse. That was designed to hint at something that even I picked up on, because it’s a constant.

As for dates, it’s a good thing to watch if a guy gets really wound up about paying. If he does the asking, I’ll offer and it’s cool if he accepts—I don’t offer unless I can. And special occasions are in a whole different class.

I like paying half. It sends a very clear message and if a guy can’t handle that, well, best not to waste the evening, you know?

karak
karak
9 years ago

MRA’s seem so obsessed with sex and vaginas. Like… sure, sex is great, but I always thought the best part of it was doing it with someone with comparable goals, whether those goals were, “let’s come tonight and never speak again” or “let’s use this medium to feel emotionally close to one another”.

I mean guys, if you’re essentially masturbating into a wet hole, either fuck other guys or get a fleshlight or something. It’s… not that hard. No, seriously, If you can’t control yourself to the point that you buy a car in exchange for sex, then you have a serious addiction and need help. Especially because you just paid $30,000 for what you can legally buy in Vegas for $200.

Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel
Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel
9 years ago

guys, if you’re essentially masturbating into a wet hole, either fuck other guys or get a fleshlight or something

Respecting male homosexuality FAIL

VoiP
VoiP
9 years ago

So he’s saying that men have to have bodily autonomy and not be socially pressured into having sex they don’t want to have? Great. Welcome to the fight against rape culture; here’s your sword and shield!

It’s the bit where he thinks feminists disagree with his overall goal that makes me puzzled.

Remember tho, what feminists want…is patriarchy.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

Also, now that I think about it, is MRAL actually quoting The Empire Strikes Back? Doesn’t Han call Leia something very similar? Yeah, romantic comedy.

There’s a big difference between Cary Grant and Roslyn Russell, sparring as equals, and even a revered character like Han Solo, using some pretty sexist tropes on Leia, who George Lucas turns into a literal slave later on in the movie. After all, Han shouts at her flatly that ‘she could use a good kiss!’ Imagine what that line would have been like if they weren’t going for the PG rating.

Han calls Leia “Your worship” in the first movie, and “Your Highness” in the second. Since she’s a princess, “Your Highness” is the correct way to address her, but he sneers it, pretty much exactly like MRAL is doing. And yeah, the “good kiss” line becomes a lot nastier if you take it out of PG.

Thing is, I think this is supposed to be asshole behavior. The whole point of his story arc is him growing the hell up from selfish antihero to true hero. And I don’t know about anyone else, but the “good kiss” line never came off as witty or clever to me. Even as a kid, that moment always came off as Han throwing a tantrum.

As for the slave scene…I don’t know if this makes it any better, but Lucas was actually doing something kinda interesting with that sequence. In the Buck Rogers serials that Star Wars was based on, the heroine being enslaved by a sleazy evil overlord (usually a humanoid one) was pretty common. Said heroine choking said overlord to death with her slave-chain the very second his guards are looking the other way was somewhat less common.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

Not trying to argue that Star Wars is a landmark of feminist cinema or anything, but pretty fair for its time. If you want to see something that’s absolutely astoundingly feminist for its time, check out Them. Yes, the giant ant movie.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Holly Pervocracy
“But the MRA perversion of the ideal comes in when they imply that doing so is striking an aggressive blow against the other gender and wresting control (of what? it is important never to say, or you might reveal how incredibly petty this kind of “control” actually is), rather than just… not having sex with that person at that time.”

Well precious, “the control,” would be women using sex as a weapon. Preposterous I know. But just for shits and giggles let’s toss out a few examples.

How about, “no sex until a certain labor, (yardwork, repairs, ect.) has been performed.” This is labor for sex.

How about, “you never take me anywhere romantic or on vacation.” This would be a money exchange for sex.

How about, “you don’t listen when I talk.” Or, “why don’t you talk to me.” This would be behavior modification for sex.

And let’s not forget the wonderful using sex to have a man punish another man in some way. Physical, employment, threats and so forth.

I could go on but I think you get the point. I have no problems pointing out the flaws of women, and you can’t stand that. Unless of course none of the above happens, or women are perfect and men should labor, finance and change their behavior for women.

Not likey you’ll even read this since I’m the moderated man.
PS, recently MRAs tried for an equal parenting bill to be passed. I of course signed. However we lost. It seems women have such power within the Government that men asking for the return of a usurped right, was summarily dismissed. This is again an example of men having no rights, even though the majority of the 435 people running the show are men.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

OK, everyone! To the logic shields!

NWO, has anyone here ever ACTUALLY come out and said that women are perfect? In those words? Ever?

Joanna
9 years ago

@NWO How about those men that be “nice” to a girl just to get sex? How bout those guys that say “I love you” and don’t mean it, just to get sex? How bout those guys that say a whole lotta “You’re the only one for me” bullshit, just to get sex? Two faced pricks.

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

So, according to NWOslave, all women have personalities composed of the worst of nagging sitcom wife stereotypes.
NWOslave, do you ever actually interact with real women? Or can they all smell the misogyny coming from a mile away?

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Wait a second…you mean that the MRAs tried to get Congress to do anything?

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

This is again an example of men having no rights, even though the majority of the 435 people running the show are men.

I lol’d. Then i realized that he’s serious and lol’d harder.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

I would think that the constant mocking, derision, and moderation would have convinced NWO to go his own fucking way already, but nothing seems to sink in.

nedbeaumontjr
9 years ago

My knowledge of military history isn’t as strong as it might be, but it seems to me that some low-slung vaginas without running lights would stand a good chance of running the cock blockade.

Hershele Ostropoler
9 years ago

filet:

Er. He realizes (the OP that is) that men already can and do turn down sex?

I’m guessing he thinks that, in practical terms, men can’t turn down sex. If men are always horny and women pretty much never are, women don’t offer sex, so a man has no opportunity to turn it down; if a woman does offer, a man won’t turn it down because he doesn’t want to lose the opportunity.

karak:

Especially because you just paid $30,000 for what you can legally buy in Vegas for $200.

Nope, not in Vegas. Vegas is in Clark County, where prostitution is illegal. </nitpick>

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

How about, “you don’t listen when I talk.” Or, “why don’t you talk to me.” This would be behavior modification for sex.

You know NWO, nearly your entire post is bullshit but this? Above?

It’s wrong for women to want the men they’re having sex with to talk to them? To listen to them? Really? You’re really going to provide this as an example of… whatever it is you’re trying to prove?

NWO, would you like to be in an intimate with someone who didn’t want to talk to you or listen to you? I mean, I realize that very few people want to talk or listen to you, but still? Would you?

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

I’m guessing he thinks that, in practical terms, men can’t turn down sex.

He doesn’t. NWO has offered scenarios where an underaged girl wants to have sex with him -he knows she’s underage- he has sex with her anyway and then is possibly punished by law enforcement. It never occurs to him that, in his scenario, he can always turn her down.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

How about, “no sex until a certain labor, (yardwork, repairs, ect.) has been performed.” This is labor for sex.

Wow, what a shitty relationship you describe. Either he’s a lazy ass or she’s controlling or both, and you just know that the sex is going to be grudging and resentful. They should really break up.

How about, “you never take me anywhere romantic or on vacation.” This would be a money exchange for sex.

How about, “you don’t listen when I talk.” Or, “why don’t you talk to me.” This would be behavior modification for sex.

Um…I don’t see where the hypothetical woman even mentioned sex. Unless you believe every nice thing a man does for a woman is, by definition, an exchange for sex.

BTW, most women I know would articulate the first example as “Why don’t we ever go anywhere romantic” or “why don’t we ever go on vacation”.

And let’s not forget the wonderful using sex to have a man punish another man in some way. Physical, employment, threats and so forth.

Do you actually run into that a lot?

Comrade Svilova
9 years ago

Yeah, using sex to manipulate someone else is terrible. It’s not a feminist position, however.

IBTP. 🙂

katz
9 years ago

I’d also like to put in a good word for Leia’s role. She’s almost a deconstruction of the typical female sci-fi role, put in similar circumstances (captured and tortured to reveal the location of the rebel base, etc), but then reacting like a smart, resourceful person instead of a shrinking violet.

In Return of the Jedi, she gets shot but tells Han “it’s not bad,” both invoking the usually ultra-masculine trope of a hero shrugging off an injury to show how tough he is, and making her the only person in the universe ever to survive a blaster shot.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Well precious, “the control,” would be women using sex as a weapon. Preposterous I know. But just for shits and giggles let’s toss out a few examples.

Well, snookums, sex is not a knife nor a gun. Having sex with someone against their will can be a weapon, but not having sex with them cannot be, unless I am attacking literally everyone in the world with said weapon right now.

How about, “no sex until a certain labor, (yardwork, repairs, ect.) has been performed.” This is labor for sex.

How about, “you never take me anywhere romantic or on vacation.” This would be a money exchange for sex.

How about, “you don’t listen when I talk.” Or, “why don’t you talk to me.” This would be behavior modification for sex.

In all of these cases (which, not that you’d know, humans don’t do all that often), you are free to not do the labor, not pay the money, and not put up with the oh-so-onerous task of talking to your intimate partner with whom you supposedly share your life. Sure, you won’t make her happy, but if you don’t care about making her happy–there ya go.

Although it does raise the question of why you’re in a relationship with this person in the first place, if you don’t want to do anything with her other than fuck. You really don’t need an entire relationship for that. I mean, shit, wouldn’t you enjoy spending time with your sweetie? “We should do fun things together” is not supposed to be a one-sided demand.

Anyway, it’s not a “weapon” and it’s not very much “power” if you’re free to say “no” and suffer no consequences other than the dreaded not-having-sex.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Weird coincidence: as I was typing the above, I was on the phone with my boyfriend talking about going on vacation. The difference being that he wanted to go because he loves travel and we really enjoy private time together. (Also, I’m paying half.) It’s not all about sex and it’s not all about me; it’s about, you know, vacation, which is a nice thing that people enjoy.

It’s amazing how much more pleasant Actual-Earth relationships are than MRA-Land hypothetical ones.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Joanna
“@NWO How about those men that be “nice” to a girl just to get sex? How bout those guys that say “I love you” and don’t mean it, just to get sex? How bout those guys that say a whole lotta “You’re the only one for me” bullshit, just to get sex? Two faced pricks.”

That would be the PUA crowd no doubt. Have you ever heard me endorse the PUA crowd? PUA men and slut women are the flip sides of the same coin. I have however noticed the extreme prejudice women show towards the PUAs while vehemently defending slut behavior.

My recent “moderation” is proof of the duplicity of this site and your behavior. I’m banned for being “mean” to Molly Ren. She openly admits to sleeping with at least 30 men and you praise her for it. So she not only uses men for sex, but profit as well. I find it highly unlikely she has never “accepted” drinks, dinners, vacations, some type of monetary gain.

My “crime,” which brought about my moderation was supposedly not considering her “human.” Yet she uses men as sex toys with monetary benefits. Apparently, she see’s men as “human” sex toys with money. Oh glorious day.

I’ve told you that if a 15 year old girl offered to have sex with me I’d say yes. And I stand by that with good reason. I’ve been in several relationships, and I’ve wanted children as I’ve told you before. The answer was “no.” I don’t have a right to reproduce, no man does. For all I know one of these women might have had an abortion. I don’t even have the right to know that for a short time span I was a father. I don’t have that right.

So in the modern world sluts are praised. I have no reproductive rights. Adultery carries no stigma. And a man can lose his property at a moments notice. In other words, loyalty, reproduction and fidelity aren’t even on the table. A woman doesn’t have to be loyal, (ie, Flirting, dressing to be admired by “all” men. Really, any behavior at all is up to her discretion, and acceptable, and defensible). A woman doesn’t have to allow a mans unborn child to live. It’s the “law.” A woman doesn’t have any reason what-so-ever to remain sexually faithful. At any time any woman married/girlfriend can have sex with any willing man.

The point is, the only “offer” out there for men in the modern world is sex. It might cost an investment in time/money or both, but that’s all that’s on the table.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

…must…not…go…off…on…total…Star Wars…tangent…

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Holly Pervocracy

“Anyway, it’s not a “weapon” and it’s not very much “power” if you’re free to say “no” and suffer no consequences other than the dreaded not-having-sex.”

Good for you Holly. Sticking up for women who use an act of intimacy to coerce labor, wealth and behavior out of men.

Keep up the fine work.

ozymandias42
9 years ago

Seraph: This is MANBOOBZ. Star Wars tangents are always encouraged.

NWO: Holding sex hostage for yardwork or vacations is shitty. Good thing you are capable of dumping people and finding someone who doesn’t pull that behavior. Anyone who does that probably has myriad other problems that make being in a relationship with them a bad idea.*

Also, no, “talks to me” is not an excessive expectation for someone who wants to be in a relationship with me. (Yes, casual sex is a relationship.) That is part of what makes having sex with a human different from having sex with a RealDoll.

*Does “I won’t have sex with you until you do what I want!” seem emotionally abusive/controlling to anyone else? I mean, obviously, the right to say no is sacrosanct, there is no bad reason to say no to sex, but…

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“…must…not…go…off…on…total…Star Wars…tangent…”

I can think of many worse tangents to be caught in. Did anyone here actually buy a Tauntaun sleeping bag?

Captain Bathrobe
Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

I am attacking literally everyone in the world with said weapon right now.

Holly I demand that you cease this unprovoked assault upon the world forthwith!

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

making her the only person in the universe ever to survive a blaster shot.

Not counting the damage to Luke’s bionic hand or Vader blocking Han’s blasts with his gauntlets and/or the Force, of course.

Another moment that makes her human instead of the Perfect Shining Heroine or the cliche of the spoiled princess: her racist remark toward Chewbacca in the first movie. Wookies are members of galactic society and the Alliance, and she calls one a walking carpet? When she’s mad at Han? Guess she had something to learn, too.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

…there.

Ginmar Rienne
9 years ago

It’s funny how deconstructions only happen when the girl is wearing a skimpy metal slave costume. And that Lucas—-like so many other guys—couldn’t think of said deconstruction without said skimpy outfit. When she’s the only female character in the whole fucking series. You know, it’s not that bad for the period ignores the fact that all George Lucas’ movies have featured one major female character, who often start out feisty but make really questionable decisions in relationships that wind up causing them problems. Leia’s mother’s decisions killed her. And were exceptionally stupid.

And again, one woman per movie—don’t talk to me about some bit players here and there—-says more than any token feistiness. “Feisty” itself has a history of its own. Leia is the one asking Han if he’s going to be the one to go—he’s going to be the one who chooses, not her, and she’s the Princess. Fail.

Ginmar Rienne
9 years ago

Oh, Christ, is Seraph actually calling Leia a racist? Yeah, it’s kind of funny how Leia’s a racist but Han is a storied hero on an epic redemption quest. Sure. No double standard there, sarcasm or not.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

We get it, Ginmar, you are the Alpha Feminist because you refuse to like anything.

I unfortunately am a weak human and like some things, and thus will forever be a Beta Feminist.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

No, Han’s an asshole who mostly grew out of it over the course of the three movies. Plain old character development, rather mundane amongst all the epic happenings. His asshole behavior is not what we like about him.

And yes, Leia’s line was racist in-story, though if you asked me to say that to you in person I probably couldn’t keep a straight face. To tell the truth, I’d say it’s actually a case of Lucas trying to be funny instead of actually thinking what the characters would say. Leia’s a diplomat; she’d never say something like that. Neither is she dumb enough to insult the seven-foot-tall monster for no reason.

You know, it’s not that bad for the period ignores the fact that all George Lucas’ movies have featured one major female character,

True. And while “not bad for the period” might have excused that in the original trilogy, it really, really doesn’t in the Prequels. People of color do even worse – Jango Fett, Mace Windu and Padme’s captain of the guard put together probably don’t equal Lando’s screentime.

who often start out feisty

Leia was badass. Padme was a stiff (despite being played by an Oscar winner…makes you wonder if the writing or directing might have been at fault…nah, couldn’t be). There is no feisty.

And again, one woman per movie—don’t talk to me about some bit players here and there—-says more than any token feistiness.

It does indeed. Ever seen my review of Avatar: The Last Airbender over on Shakesville? That show didn’t always live up to its feminist good intentions, but it did a better job than most at making women just-another-character instead of tokens.

“Feisty” itself has a history of its own.

I hear you. I got pretty tired of hearing MJ described as “strong” in the Spider Man movies, when all she really had going for her was feisty. Kirsten Dunst played a stronger character in Bring It On.

Leia is the one asking Han if he’s going to be the one to go—he’s going to be the one who chooses, not her, and she’s the Princess. Fail.

Well, yes, but he’s not her subject, and since he’s apparently leaving the Rebellion at that point, she’s not his superior officer, either. She doesn’t have the authority to order him to stay.

karak
karak
9 years ago

@Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel– having sex with a guy if you’re a guy doesn’t make you homosexual. If you have sex with a man because you despise, hate, and fear women… you’re not gay.

He want to have sex, he doesn’t want to have sex with women, find a like-minded man and have sex with him. Problem solved.

@ Hershele Ostropoler– absolutely true, I shouldn’t say things without wiki-ing them first. Sorry.

Ginmar Rienne
9 years ago

Because pointing out that George Lucas casts one major character per movie as a woman—and then proceeds to tear her down—is hardly what I’d call outrageous feminism.

But hey, obviously I touched a nerve that made you want to make sure that people know you’re a good, fun, sexy feminist. You win. Let me know when MRAL or NWO what-the-fuck-ever ask you out. Here’s your trophy.

(Last sentence omitted for sadism.)

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

*Sigh*

Here we go again.

ozymandias42
9 years ago

It is possible to recognize that Star Wars is problematically feminist and simultaneously like Star Wars and appreciate these aspects of it which are feminist. Movies are very rarely binary Social Justice Win/Social Justice Fail, you know?