Up until now, as you all know, I’ve been a strong supporter of the gynofascist ladytopia. But after watching the following video I am beginning to reconsider. Three seconds is too short. This lady is too bossy. And I really, really don’t want to have to learn how to line dance. Also, why does everyone have to wear a white shirt? Watch, and you’ll see what I mean. If this is the ladytopia, I want none of it!
Categories
That smiley should have been =^._.^=
Is that how reproduction works? You see, Jaden, when a daddy’s gaze lingers on a mommy for longer than 3 seconds, she gets a baby in her tummy. And that’s how you were born!
If that’s the case, it’s weird that singin’ lady had to make up a Rule about it. One would think MRAs, at least, would be gouging out their eyes, in an effort not to be stuck with the dreaded CHILD SUPPORT.
NWO, I knwo your feel. So much sexual readiness, she obvioulsy wants to have sex with me, since she let me saw her like that. But when I try to sex her, it happens to be a video, and I don’t know how to do to have sex with a video. Help, I think she worse-than-raped me by stopping me to reproduce with her!
Wait, or is it just for men? Or maybe it’s the penis? Is it really so painful to have a boner? Maybe you should see a doctor about this issue.
</subtle sarcasm>
If my sexual partner fall from the bed, do I only have 3 seconds to help him go back?
Alright, so going by the Consumer Expenditure Survey, the amount of money spent per single person (unmarried men and women with no kids) on “Apparel and services”, “Personal care products and services,” and “miscellaneous” (just for the hell of over stating it):
$1,241+$426+$730 = $2,397 per year.
Since there are about 96 million such single people, that leads to about:
2,397*96,000,000 = 230,112,000,000
Or about 230 billion dollars on those categories. Since this is most likely an overestimate due to including men, there is no way in hell you could get trillions spent by single women trying to entice men by their sexuality. Which is really what NWO is after here.
I figured that married women would have no need to “signal their readiness to reproduce.” I also assumed “adults” for everyone’s sake.
“Acting like a hypersexual animal in heat” = “being a fairly modestly-dressed middle-aged woman who sings very, very badly while dudes in cowboy hats line-dance”? Dude, NWO, you know some WEIRD animals.
On the one hand, this definition suits me better than the earlier “wearing clothes” one insofar as I am far more likely to wear clothes than I am to sing like that (or to be around a bevy of line-dancing dudes), but on the other hand…wtf I don’t even how in the hell is anything in that video even sexual let alone hypersexual aaaaaaargh.
I mean, I guess she is wearing clothes, and there are men there. They are not particularly sexy clothes, and the men appear to be busy line-dancing and trying not to crack up rather than being desperately inflamed with lust, but then, I think she does change outfits a couple of times (I am not inflicting that video on myself a second time to verify this), so presumably in NWO-land that means she sexed them all up repeatedly with her multiple pieces of attire?
nwoslave, those women do want men to act on their instinct to reproduce. They just don’t want you to act on your instinct to reproduce. Got that?
In order to get to 1 trillion dollars for the same group of people, you’d need to spend an average of 10K a year per person just on jewlery, makeup, etc.
If it were just women, then (going by the website saying that there are 100 single women for every 88 single men) you would need every adult single woman in the US to spend:
1 trillion / ~51 million = $19,583, or almost 20K a year.
According to slightly outdated data from wikipedia states that the median individual income for women over 25 was $19,679 a year.
Apparently, (by averages), women were left with about $100 per year to spend on food and shelter and whatnot. Maybe they were spending all that money to look good so that they could entrap men to pay for the rest of the stuff for them! XD
My husband declares his intent to fuck very enthusiastically.
I ask, with my brandy in hand and my monocle on face, “Why my dear husband, do you perchance desire to do naughty sexual things together?”
To which he responds, “HELL YES!”
Sexytime then commences. He doesn’t need to use semaphore or special code or ANYTHING. It’s AMAZING.
Also, judging by my husband, who is a shameless slut, and my own experience with farm animals…
You REALLY don’t know what “act like a hypersexual animal in heat” ACTUALLY means, do you?
Seriously, if this nice middle aged lady with her shapeless clothes and her twee lyrics is NWOs idea of an irresistably tempting woman who is deliberately driving all the men mad with her animalistic sexuality I don’t know how he gets through the day. A trip to Safeway to buy cereal must be like a live sex show for him.
So I’m a slut when I want to “act on my instinct to reproduce” more than my man (within the confines of our relationship and without actual reproduction) but when he wants to more than me we should pity him because he’s got to suppress his natural instincts? Boo hoo. (And, for the record, I’d say the former is far more frequent than the latter. Because I’m a slutty, slutty slut. In heat. With makeup on.)
Also, if I’m dealing with a stallion and he tries to go after a mare in heat, um, yes I tell him to back down and ignore her. Because it’s not appropriate to go try and mount a mare in the middle of a show ring when she’s working and he’s supposed to be working too. Most stallions pick up pretty quickly that there are times to do their job as a show horse and there are times to do their job as a stallion. They know they can do that later, in private, when everyone agrees to the process. I don’t know, maybe there’s an analogy to be drawn here…?
….No, seriously, I don’t, I just don’t want to be hassled at my job, regarding lipstick. I choose jewelry as an accessory. Stop helping.
And the criminals will be tried in Admiralty Court.
@LBT — Semaphore’s more for the tortured, forbidden love type scenario, anyway.
RE: Falconer
Appropriate video! Though my husband is claiming now that he WOULD use semaphore, but only if he’s allowed to use other parts of his anatomy than his hands.
Aww, did NWO leave already? Come back, NWO, come back! Look! Hypersexualized Animals in Heat!!! (Link is sorta NSFW, but not very)
I mean… So its more like female artists are depicted as hypersexualized rather than are hypersexual, but still!
(On a scary note, apparently about 61% of the photos of women on the covers of magazines are ‘hypersexualized’ by the study’s judgement, as opposed to 2% of photos of men. Oi.)
Hey, NWO? You do realize that women in lipstick or jewlery aren’t necessarily wearing such things to tell people she wants to have sex, right? Like… Are you signaling your sex-readiness every time you wear a suit and tie?
NWO has explained many times that women get orgasms by wearing clothes in public. As far as I can figure out, it works like this:
1. Women do not get orgasms from sex. They get orgasms from telepathically picking up on random men’s attraction to them while no sex is happening.
2. Therefore, women deliberately wear attractive clothing in public in order to arouse men, which gives the women constant orgasms.
3. Anything a woman wears is attractive enough to arouse a man, so all the women you see are having secret telepathic orgasms, not just the ones in sexy outfits. (I think NWO once conceded that it would be okay for women to go outdoors in full-length pioneer prairie dresses, with no makeup or jewelry, but everything else is slutwear.)
3a. All you women claiming that you usually wear jeans and T-shirts are lying. Women aways wear bikinis, micro-miniskirts, and/or see-through shirts with no bras. Go to the mall and tell me I’m wrong. Every woman there is in a bikini.
4. It’s unfair that women get to have all these orgasms from wearing clothes in public, while the men from whom they telepathically steal those orgasms receive no orgasms at all.
5. Therefore, if a woman goes out in public wearing clothes, men should be allowed to rape her.
Did I miss anything in this logic chain, NWO?
kirbywarp, as a Lady of Science I must object to your comparing median income to mean amount spent on jewelry. It’s super misleading, and we don’t need to lie with statistics to prove our points.
@ascendingPig:
Duly noted. It was more for amusement than anything else, but it also was the only info I could find.
Do you know how cool this would be?
wow.
I was gonna say… Sign me up for secret telepathic orgasms!
Wait wut? I’m supposed to get orgasms by wearing clothing? Why wasn’t this explained to me years ago? Or is it that I’m just one of those freakishly man type females, so I’ve never experienced this? I’m sure that must be it, because every time an MRA lists the attributes of femininity, it bears no resemblance to me or any woman I know.
NWO, please explain to me how the human species could survive if women had proper feminine traits? Cause that lobotomy of human characteristics seems like something you wouldn’t want passed on to your kids, especially as its just as likely to happen to sons.
Well I guess I better get my priorities in order. Last year I spent zero on make up or jewelry and maybe fifty bucks on clothes.
Clearly I have not been doing my part to maintain the economy.